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.

Prevalence and predictors of sustained remission/low disease activity after discontinuation of induction or maintenance treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic and scoping review

BACKGROUND

To determine the prevalence of sustained remission/low disease activity (LDA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), separately in induction treatment and maintenance treatment studies, and to identify predictors of successful discontinuation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of studies published from 2005 to May 2022 that reported outcomes after TNFi discontinuation among patients in remission/LDA. We computed prevalences of successful discontinuation by induction or maintenance treatment, remission criterion, and follow-up time. We performed a scoping review of predictors of successful discontinuation.

RESULTS

Twenty-two induction-withdrawal studies were identified. In pooled analyses, 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 45, 70) had DAS28 < 3.2 (9 studies), 52% (95% CI 35, 69) had DAS28 < 2.6 (9 studies), and 40% (95% CI 18, 64) had SDAI ≤ 3.3 (4 studies) at 37-52 weeks after discontinuation. Among patients who continued TNFi, 62 to 85% maintained remission. Twenty-two studies of maintenance treatment discontinuation were also identified. At 37-52 weeks after TNFi discontinuation, 48% (95% CI 38, 59) had DAS28 < 3.2 (10 studies), and 47% (95% CI 33, 62) had DAS28 < 2.6 (6 studies). Heterogeneity among studies was high. Data on predictors in induction-withdrawal studies were limited. In both treatment scenarios, longer duration of RA was most consistently associated with less successful discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-half of patients with RA remain in remission/LDA for up to 1 year after TNFi discontinuation, with slightly higher proportions in induction-withdrawal settings than with maintenance treatment discontinuation.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Insensitivity versus poor response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

With advancement in the treatment options of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), optimising the outcomes of difficult-to-treat patients has become increasingly important in clinical practice. In particular, insensitivity to first-line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) is becoming a significant problem because it may decrease the treatment adherence of patients. This study aimed to compare RA patients with an insensitivity and those with a poor response to initial treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are the most frequently used bDMARDs.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using clinical data from the FIRST registry. bDMARD-naïve RA patients treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) from August 2003 to May 2019 were included and categorised into three groups: TNFi insensitivity, poor response to TNFis and controls. TNFi insensitivity was defined as follows: (1) discontinuation of TNFi treatment within 22 weeks due to lack of any response, or (2) an increase in the disease activity score in 28 joints–C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of > 0.6 at week 22 compared with week 0. Among the remaining patients, those with a DAS28-CRP > 2.6 at week 22 were categorised in the poor response group.

Results

Of the included patients, 94 were classified in the insensitivity, 604 in the poor response and 915 in the control. A higher DAS28-CRP before treatment was a risk factor for a poor response but not for insensitivity. In contrast, dose escalation of infliximab decreased the risk of a poor response but not that of insensitivity.

Conclusions

In future research, poor and insensitivity to bDMARDs should be assessed separately to fully elucidate the aetiology of, and risk factors for, bDMARD refractoriness.

Treatment strategies are more important than drugs in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

The treatment of inflammatory arthritides has been changed dramatically in the past two decades with the introduction of the biological (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as well as the targeting synthetic (ts) DMARDs that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. The concept of treat to target (T2T) and tight control monitoring of disease activity represents a therapeutic paradigm of modern rheumatology. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), this treatment approach has proven to be effective in many clinical trials and is now a well-established approach. The most common treatment strategies rely on the combination of csDMARDs (mainly methotrexate, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine). This comes from different studies which compare the outcomes of combination therapies versus csDMARD monotherapy or versus methotrexate plus biologics in early RA patients. Here, we review the literature of the most important T2T studies for RA patients. The results showed that a tight control strategy appears to be more important than a specific drug to control RA. T2T approach aiming for remission or low disease activity can be achieved in early RA patients using less expensive drugs in comparison to newer drugs and this may need to be recognised in the future recommendations for the management of RA. KEY POINTS: • Tight-control and treat-to-target (T2T) strategies are the cornerstone in achieving remission or low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) • A plethora of clinical trials has confirmed the efficacy of csDMARDs when the tight-control and T2T strategies are applied • T2T and tight-control strategies are a less expensive option in comparison to newer drugs and may be recognised in the future recommendations for the management of RA. • Treatment decisions and strategies are more important than just the drugs.

Low rates of remission with methotrexate monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: review of randomised controlled trials could point towards a paradigm shift

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved substantially during the last decades, mainly due to the development and introduction in everyday practice of new, highly efficacious, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), more optimal usage of them, earlier diagnosis and tighter control of disease activity targeting at remission. Methotrexate is still today the anchor drug and the first-line treatment after diagnosis. However, numerous studies comparing methotrexate and biologic DMARDs, as well as new targeted synthetic DMARDs, both in early as in more established disease, have shown consistently better efficacy of the latter compared with methotrexate, with methotrexate yielding remission to maximum half of patients. This could suggest a new paradigm shift with earlier start of a biologic or a targeted synthetic DMARD, with the possibility of subsequent discontinuation in case of achievement of stable remission. Several strategy trials, however, have shown that there might be a clinical and structural benefit of initial, aggressive therapy, possibly even associated with higher chance of remaining in remission, after cessation of the biologic DMARD and continuing with methotrexate alone, but they have failed to show a clear advantage of such an aggressive treatment strategy. This might become a valuable option for the future treatment algorithm of RA, especially for a subgroup of patients with RA, but further confirmation from future research is needed. The crucial role of glucocorticoid use as part of the combination strategy should be acknowledged, and strategy trials should include this combination as an active comparator.

Superiority of a Treat-to-Target Strategy over Conventional Treatment with Fixed csDMARD and Corticosteroids: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial in RA Patients with an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic DMARDs, and New Therapy with Certolizumab Pegol

Background: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) includes the use of conventional (cs), biologic (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and oral, intramuscularly, intravenous, or intraarticular (IA) glucocorticoids (GCs). In this paper, we analysed whether a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy optimizing csDMARD, oral, and IA-GC treatment as an adjunct new therapy to a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) therapy improves the effectivity in RA patients. Methods: 43 patients with active RA (≥6 tender, ≥6 swollen joints, ESR ≥ 20 mm/h or CRP ≥ 7mg/L) despite csDMARD treatment for ≥ 3 months and naïve to bDMARDs were randomized to CZP (200 mg/2 weeks after loading with 400 mg at weeks 0–2–4) plus a treat-to-target strategy (T2T, n = 21), or to CZP added to the established csDMARD therapy (fixed regimen, n = 22). The T2T strategy consisted of changing the baseline csDMARD therapy (1) SC-methotrexate (dose: 15 ≥ 20 ≥ 25 mg/week, depending on the initial dose) ≥ leflunomide (20 mg/d) ≥ sulphasalazine (2 × 1000 mg/d) plus (2) oral GCs (prednisolone 20–15–12.5–10–7.5–5–2.5–0 mg/d tapered every five days) and (3) injections of ≤5 affected joints with triamcinolone. DMARD modification and an addition of oral GCs were initiated, depending on the achievement of low disease activity (DAS 28 < 3.2). The primary objective was defined as the ACR 50 response at week 24. Results: ACR 50 was achieved in 76.2% of the T2T, as compared to 36.4% of the fixed regimen patients (p = 0.020). ACR 20 and 70 responses were achieved in 90.5% and 71.4% of the T2T patients and 59.1% and 27.3% of the fixed regimen patients, respectively (p = 0.045 and p = 0.010, respectively). The adverse event rate was similar for both groups (T2T n = 51; fixed regimen n = 55). Conclusion: Treat-to-target management with the optimization of csDMARDs, oral, and IA-GCs of RA patients in parallel to a newly established CZP treatment was safe and efficacious in comparison to a fixed regimen of csDMARDs background therapy.

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

INTRODUCTION

Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.

CONCLUSION

In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison of efficacy of biologics and small molecules in early rheumatoid arthritis

The current paradigm in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to treat patients in the early stage of the disease (ERA). Previous meta-analysis-based mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs), aimed to identify the most effective drugs in ERA, are biased by the wide "window" of early definition, ranging from 6 months to 2 years. The aim of this study was to estimate through a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis which biologics or small molecules are more likely to achieve a 1-year good clinical response in ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologic agents and small molecules in combination with MTX to treat patients affected with ERA lasting < 1 year were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov between 1990 and September 2017. The outcome of interest was the achievement of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 and ACR 70 response at 1 year. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a fixed effect model. Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Tofacitinib (64.83%) followed by Etanercept (23.26%) were the drugs with the highest probability of achieving ACR50 response. Rituximab showed the highest probability of inducing ACR70 response (52.81%) followed by Etanercept (26.85%). This is the first MTC involving only RCTs on ERA patients with disease duration < 1 year. Tofacitinib and rituximab were the drugs ranked first in inducing 1-year ACR50 and ACR70 response, respectively.

Intensive therapy and remissions in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of intensive treatment strategies in achieving remission in patients with both early and established Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated trials and comparative studies reporting remission in RA patients treated intensively with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Analysis used RevMan 5.3 to report relative risks (RR) in random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 928 publications: 53 studies were included (48 superiority studies; 6 head-to-head trials). In the superiority studies 3013/11259 patients achieved remission with intensive treatment compared with 1211/8493 of controls. Analysis of the 53 comparisons showed a significant benefit for intensive treatment (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.90, 2.61). Intensive treatment increased remissions in both early RA (23 comparisons; RR 1.56; 1.38, 1.76) and established RA (29 comparisons RR 4.21, 2.92, 6.07). All intensive strategies (combination DMARDs, biologics, JAK inhibitors) increased remissions. In the 6 head-to-head trials 317/787 patients achieved remission with biologics compared with 229/671 of patients receiving combination DMARD therapies and there was no difference between treatment strategies (RR 1.06; 0.93. 1.21). There were differences in the frequency of remissions between early and established RA. In early RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 49% compared with 34% in controls. In established RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 19% compared with 6% in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment with combination DMARDs, biologics or JAK inhibitors increases the frequency of remission compared to control non-intensive strategies. The benefits are seen in both early and established RA.

The Efficacy and Safety of Mainstream Medications for Patients With cDMARD-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The mainstream medications for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), which mostly are methotrexate (MTX), and biologic agents such as adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab (CZP), etanercept (ETN), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and tocilizumab (TCZ). This network meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the medications above and interventions combining cDMARDs and biologic agents for patients with RA.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes concerning efficacy and safety were evaluated utilizing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). The outcomes of efficacy would be evaluated through remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank each treatment on each index.

Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 9,047 patients were included, and the efficacy and safety of the concerning interventions for RA were evaluated. Compared with cDMARDs alone, TCZ+MTX, ETN+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and ADA+MTX showed significant statistical advantage on ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70. Apart from that, as for remission, TCZ+MTX, IFX+MTX, TCZ, and CZP+MTX performed better compared to cDMARDs alone. The SUCRA ranking also indicated that TCZ+MTX was the intervention with best ranking in the entire four efficacy indexes followed by ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX. However, there was no obvious difference among these medications compared with cDMARDs when it comes to safety, which need more specific studies on that.

Conclusion: TCZ+MTX was potentially the most recommended combination of medications for RA due to its good performance in all outcomes of efficacy. ETX+MTX and IFX+MTX, which also performed well, could be introduced as alternative treatments. However, considering the adverse events, the treatments concerning should be introduced with caution.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Similar short-term clinical response to high-dose versus low-dose methotrexate in monotherapy and combination therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Aiming at rapid decrease of disease activity, there has been a trend to start with higher doses of methotrexate (MTX) in patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both as monotherapy and in combination with other antirheumatic drugs. We aimed to study the relationship between clinical response and MTX dose as monotherapy or combination therapy in patients with early RA.

Methods

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with early RA, from a large international observational database, the METEOR database, were selected if MTX was part of their initial treatment. Patients were divided into four groups: MTX monotherapy, MTX + convention synthetic (cs)DMARDs, MTX + glucocorticoids or MTX + biologic (b)DMARDs. MTX dose was dichotomized: low dose ≤10 mg/week; high dose ≥15 mg/week. Linear mixed model analyses for the Disease Activity Score (DAS), DAS in 28 joints (DAS28) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) were performed in each medication group, with MTX dose and time as covariates. Outcomes were assessed from baseline until 3–6 months follow up. Associations were adjusted for potential confounding by indication using propensity score (PS) modelling.

Results

For patients starting MTX monotherapy (n = 523), MTX + csDMARDs (n = 266) or MTX + glucocorticoids (n = 615), the PS-adjusted effects of MTX dose (high versus low) on the DAS, DAS28 and HAQ were small and not clinically meaningful. Patients starting MTX + bDMARDs were disregarded due to low numbers (n =11).

Conclusions

In patients newly diagnosed with RA, no clinical benefit of high compared to low initial MTX doses was found for MTX monotherapy or for MTX combination therapy with csDMARDs or glucocorticoids.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1468-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Recommendations for optimizing methotrexate treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Methotrexate (MTX) remains the cornerstone therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with well-established safety and efficacy profiles and support in international guidelines. Clinical and radiologic results indicate benefits of MTX monotherapy and combination with other agents, yet patients may not receive optimal dosing, duration, or route of administration to maximize their response to this drug. This review highlights best practices for MTX use in RA patients. First, to improve the response to oral MTX, a high initial dose should be administered followed by rapid titration. Importantly, this approach does not appear to compromise safety or tolerability for patients. Treatment with oral MTX, with appropriate dose titration, then should be continued for at least 6 months (as long as the patient experiences some response to treatment within 3 months) to achieve an accurate assessment of treatment efficacy. If oral MTX treatment fails due to intolerability or inadequate response, the patient may be "rescued" by switching to subcutaneous delivery of MTX. Consideration should also be given to starting with subcutaneous MTX given its favorable bioavailability and pharmacodynamic profile over oral delivery. Either initiation of subcutaneous MTX therapy or switching from oral to subcutaneous administration improves persistence with treatment. Upon transition from oral to subcutaneous delivery, MTX dosage should be maintained, rather than increased, and titration should be performed as needed. Similarly, if another RA treatment is necessary to control the disease, the MTX dosage and route of administration should be maintained, with titration as needed.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Mechanism of action of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis, and the search for biomarkers

The treatment and outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been transformed over the past two decades. Low disease activity and remission are now frequently achieved, and this success is largely the result of the evolution of treatment paradigms and the introduction of new therapeutic agents. Despite the rapid pace of change, the most commonly used drug in RA remains methotrexate, which is considered the anchor drug for this condition. In this Review, we describe the known pharmacokinetic properties and putative mechanisms of action of methotrexate. Consideration of the pharmacodynamic perspective could inform the development of biomarkers of responsiveness to methotrexate, enabling therapy to be targeted to specific groups of patients. Such biomarkers could revolutionize the management of RA.

Induction maintenance with tumour necrosis factor-inhibitor combination therapy with discontinuation versus methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy in randomised controlled trials

Objective

To determine whether an induction-maintenance strategy of combined therapy (methotrexate (MTX)+tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (TNFi)) followed by withdrawal of TNFi could yield better long-term results than a strategy with MTX monotherapy, since it is unclear if the benefits from an induction phase with combined therapy are sustained if TNFi is withdrawn.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of trials using the initial combination of MTX+TNFi in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A systematic literature search was performed for induction-maintenance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where initial combination therapy was compared with MTX monotherapy in patients with clinically active early RA. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Disease Activity Score (DAS)28<3.2) and/or remission (DAS28<2.6) at 12–76 weeks of follow-up. A random-effects model was used to pool the risk ratio (RR) for LDA and remission and heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analyses.

Results

We identified 6 published RCTs, 4 of them where MTX+adalimumab was given as initial therapy and where adalimumab was withdrawn in a subset of patients after LDA/remission had been achieved. 2 additional trials used MTX+infliximab as combination therapy. The pooled RRs for achieving LDA and clinical remission at follow-up after withdrawal of TNFi were 1.41 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.89) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.89), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between trials due to different treatment strategies, which was a limitation to this study.

Conclusions

Initial therapy with MTX+TNFi is associated with a higher chance of retaining LDA and/or remission even after discontinuation of TNFi.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Drug survival of adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 10 years in the real-world settings: high rate remission together with normal function ability

The purpose of the study was to estimate the clinical profile of naïve biological patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting adalimumab through 3-year calendar periods and their clinical outcomes such as drug survival and global clinical disease control (GCDC). RA patients starting adalimumab as first biological drug between 2003 and 2012 were subdivided in 3-year calendar periods. Survival on therapy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. One and 2-year clinical response was assessed by calculating percentage of patients attaining GCDC (28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) ≤ 2.6 + Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) ≤ 0.5), low disease activity (DAS28 ≤ 3.2), remission (DAS28 ≤ 2.6) and good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Multivariate regression models were used to assess baseline predictors of drug discontinuation or achievement of clinical remission. We recruited 1695 RA patients. Overall drug persistence at 3 years was 40.6 %, while the global rate of nonswitching patients was 54.7 %. Compared to 2003-2005, initiators in more recent years had a significantly lower 3-year crude drug retention rate (log rank, p < 0.0001) and a significantly higher rate of switching to alternative biologics (log rank, p < 0.0001). No difference in adverse events or effectiveness rate among the calendar periods was found. A substantial proportion of patients (up to 27 %) achieved GCDC at 2 years, regardless of the calendar period. In real-life setting, RA patients starting adalimumab in more recent years had a higher rate of drug discontinuation not related to ineffectiveness or side effects but to switching, probably due to a wider availability of biologics. A meaningful proportion of patients attained GCDC without any difference across calendar periods.

Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

Performance of matrices developed to identify patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with rapid radiographic progression despite methotrexate therapy: an external validation study based on the ESPOIR cohort data

INTRODUCTION

Use of prediction matrices of risk or rapid radiographic progression (RRP) for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice could help to better rationalise the first line of treatment. Before use, they must be validated in populations that have not participated in their construction. The main objective is to use the ESPOIR cohort to validate the performance of 3 matrices (ASPIRE, BEST and SONORA) to predict patients at high risk of RRP at 1 year of disease despite initial treatment with methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We selected from the ESPOIR cohort 370 patients receiving MTX or leflunomide (LEF) for ≥3 months within the first year of follow-up. Patients were assessed clinically every 6 months, and structural damage progression seen on radiography was measured by the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score (vSHS) at 1 year. RRP was defined as an increase in the vSHS≥5 points during the first year.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the mean vSHS score was 1.7±5.0 and 46 patients had RRP. The ASPIRE matrix had only moderate validity in the ESPOIR population, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) <0.7. The AUC for the BEST and SONORA matrices were 0.73 and 0.76. Presence of rheumatoid factor (RF)-or anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and initial structural damage were always predictive of RRP at 1 year. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and C reactive protein (ASPIRE threshold) were not associated with RRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Matrices to identify patients at risk of RRP tested in the ESPOIR cohort seem to perform moderately. There is no matrix that shows clearly superior performance.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

BACKGROUND

Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.

METHODS

A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.

RESULTS

The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Contribution of the subjective components of the disease activity score to the response to biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

A significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis do not respond adequately to biologic treatment. We hypothesized that lack of response to (biologic) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is high in patients in whom the subjective, patient-reported component of the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) is high at baseline. The primary aim of our present study was to investigate the contribution of the more subjective versus the objective components of the DAS28 to response to biologic agents in RA patients, as well as the changes in this contribution over time. The secondary aim was to examine whether the value of this subjective contribution at baseline affects the response to treatment.

METHODS

The DAS28-P (the subjective components of the DAS28 relative to the total DAS28) was calculated. Patients were derived from the computer-assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial-II and the Biologicals and Outcome Compared and Predicted in Utrecht Region in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The DAS28-P score at baseline was not associated with the level of response according to European League Against Rheumatism criteria at 3 months. Overall, a significant reduction in the DAS28-P score was observed 3 months after start of treatment, showing a greater reduction of the combined subjective components in good responders.

CONCLUSION

The results reject the hypothesis that the lack of response to biologic DMARDs is especially high in patients in whom the patient-reported component of the DAS28 is high at baseline; these subjective components are not linked to treatment response.

Sustained biologic-free and drug-free remission in rheumatoid arthritis, where are we now?

The advent of new medications and new treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis has made it possible to achieve remission in more patients than before. Furthermore, recent clinical trials and register studies suggest that some patients who initially required aggressive therapy may achieve biologic-free remission or even the ultimate goal of therapy, drug-free remission, resembling recovery. Here, we present a discursive review of the most important studies addressing these issues. Based on the overall results, it remains unclear if achieving biologic-free and drug-free remissions are primarily due to the natural course of the disease or to the early therapeutic intervention according to the 'window of opportunity' hypothesis. Although medication-free remission is only achievable in a small subset of patients, characterizing this patient cohort may provide important information about beneficial prognostic factors and the underlying mechanisms. In summary, in a subset of patients biologic-free and even drug-free remission can be achieved; pursuing these possibilities in practice may decrease the risk for long-term side effects and attenuate the economic burden of the disease.

Does combined clinical and ultrasound assessment allow selection of individuals with rheumatoid arthritis for sustained reduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a strategy combining clinical and ultrasound (US) assessment can select individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for sustained dose reduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies.

METHODS

As part of a real-world approach, patients with RA receiving anti-TNF therapies were reviewed in a dedicated biologic therapy clinic. Patients not taking oral corticosteroids with both Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) remission (≤2.6) and absent synovitis on power Doppler US (PDUS 0) for >6 months were invited to reduce their anti-TNF therapy dose by one-third.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and February 2014, a total of 70 patients underwent anti-TNF dose reduction. Combined DAS28 and PDUS remission was maintained by 96% of patients at 3 months followup, 63% at 6 months, 37% at 9 months, and 34% at 18 months followup. However, 88% of patients maintained at least low disease activity (LDA) with DAS28 <3.2 and PDUS ≤1 at 6 months. The addition of PDUS identified 8 patients (25% of those that flared) in DAS28 remission, with subclinically active disease. Those who maintained dose reduction were more likely to be rheumatoid factor (RF) negative (46% versus 17%; P = 0.03) and have lower DAS28 scores at biologic therapy initiation (5.58 versus 5.96; P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Combined clinical and US assessment identifies individuals in remission who may be suitable for anti-TNF dose reduction and enhances safe monitoring for subclinical disease flares. Despite longstanding severe RA, a subset of our cohort sustained prolonged DAS28 and PDUS remission. LDA at biologic therapy initiation and RF status appeared predictive of sustained remission.

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.

The comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis update of 44 trials

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate and update the safety data from randomized controlled trials of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients treated for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted from 1990 to May 2013. All studies included were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab treatment. The serious adverse events and discontinuation rates were abstracted, and risk estimates were calculated by Peto odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Forty-four randomized controlled trials involving 11,700 subjects receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and 5901 subjects receiving placebo or traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were included. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment as a group was associated with a higher risk of serious infection (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.78) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) compared with placebo and traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatments. Specifically, patients taking adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab had an increased risk of serious infection (OR, 1.69, 1.98, and 1.63, respectively) and showed an increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 1.38, 1.67, and 2.04, respectively). In contrast, patients taking etanercept had a decreased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). Although ORs for malignancy varied across the different tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, none reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These meta-analysis updates of the comparative safety of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors suggest a higher risk of serious infection associated with adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and infliximab, which seems to contribute to higher rates of discontinuation. In contrast, etanercept use showed a lower rate of discontinuation. These data may help guide clinical comparative decision making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis.

Are sample sizes of randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis too large?

OBJECTIVE

We had the impression that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) frequently over enrolled patients. Thus, we surveyed power calculations in publications of RCTs of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to assess over enrollment.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 40 reports of original RCTs testing the efficacy of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in patients with RA. As a first analysis, based on a two equal arms study with an alpha error of 0·05 and a power of 80% and of 90%, recalculation of the sample size was performed using the primary outcome results. In the second analysis, only those studies with equal number of patients in both arms and also in which all elements of a power calculation were given, were considered. New sample sizes were calculated based on the presented power elements in the related publications.

RESULTS

In the first analysis, when we assigned a power of 80% and of 90%, 32 of 40 (80%) studies enrolled more than required number of patients, with a mean 131 ± 147 (SD), and 31 of 40 (78%) studies having had enrolled extra patients, with a mean 121 ± 147 (SD) in their treatment arms, respectively. Eleven studies qualified for the second analysis. There were still more patients with a mean of 48 ± 30 (SD) extra patients enrolled in the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs in RA enrol more patients than needed. This is costly and has the immediate consequence of exposing needless number of patients to potential harm.

Methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the biologic era: still an "anchor" drug?

The improvement of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management has been strictly related to methotrexate (MTX) long-term effectiveness, safety profile and its widespread use in clinical practice over the last decades. According to the results of several head-to-head comparative trials against other synthetic DMARDs, MTX has been recognised as the "anchor drug" for the treatment of RA at the end of the 1990s. The subsequent increasing knowledge in the area of RA pathophysiology has progressively expanded the arsenal of available therapeutic tools, especially by the introduction of novel drugs such as biological DMARDs. The introduction of therapies targeted to key molecules and cells involved in RA pathogenesis has significantly changed the strategies for disease management, possibly modifying the key role of MTX. This review first analyses data supporting the evolution of MTX towards the role of "anchor drug" for RA in the pre-biologic era. We will then examine how the introduction and progressive spreading of biological agents could have modified the central role of MTX in the approach to RA.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Radiological outcomes in randomized controlled trials on biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review

Several scores are currently used to estimate the radiologic progression of patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Modified Sharp score, Genant-modified Sharp score and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score are actually the most commonly used scores in randomized controlled trials on biologic drugs actually available in scientific literature. An intensive literature search (EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE) was performed in order to identify randomized controlled studies reporting on the efficacy of biologic drugs on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis by means of approved scoring methods such as Sharp score variants. All studies were evaluated for their approach to radiologic outcome, and a global evaluation of trends towards radiologic evaluation was performed. Eighteen studies were identified and analyzed, and data from such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reported and described regarding their approach to radiologic outcomes. The use of three different scoring methodologies generated similar but non-comparable data; although a big part of the studies reported good efficacy profiles of several biologic drugs on radiologic progression, data from such studies are not comparable as the three different scoring methods are not convertible from one to another. At present, there is no standardization for the evaluation of radiologic outcomes, thus preventing comparison of results obtained by different drugs. The use of a single, standardized and widely approved scoring method would grant the possibility of comparing such data.

Recovery of clinical but not radiographic outcomes by the delayed addition of adalimumab to methotrexate-treated Japanese patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results of the HOPEFUL-1 trial

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy outcomes of initial treatment with adalimumab + MTX vs adalimumab addition following 26 weeks of MTX monotherapy in Japanese early RA patients naive to MTX with high disease activity.

Methods. Patients completing the 26-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab + MTX were eligible to receive 26 weeks of open-label adalimumab + MTX. Patients were assessed for mean change from baseline in the 28-joint DAS with ESR (DAS28-ESR) and modified total Sharp score (mTSS), and for the proportions of patients achieving clinical, functional or radiographic remission.

Results. Of 333 patients assessed, 278 (137 from the initial adalimumab + MTX and 141 from the initial placebo + MTX groups) completed the 52-week study. Significant differences in clinical and functional parameters observed during the 26-week blinded period were not apparent following the addition of open-label adalimumab to MTX. Open-label adalimumab + MTX slowed radiographic progression through week 52 in both groups, but patients who received adalimumab + MTX throughout the study exhibited less radiographic progression than those who received placebo + MTX during the first 26 weeks (mean ΔmTSS at week 52 = 2.56 vs 3.30, P < 0.001).

Conclusion. Delayed addition of adalimumab in Japanese MTX-naive early RA patients did not impact clinical and functional outcomes at week 52 compared with the earlier addition of adalimumab. However, the accrual of significant structural damage during blinded placebo + MTX therapy contributed to the persistence of differences between the treatment strategies, suggesting that Japanese patients at risk for aggressive disease should benefit from the early inclusion of adalimumab + MTX combination therapy.

Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/), NCT00870467.

Clinical, Functional, and Radiographic Implications of Time to Treatment Response in Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: a Posthoc Analysis of the PREMIER Study

Objective.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment recommendations suggest target attainment within the first 3 months of therapy, yet delayed clinical responses can occur. This analysis assessed the longterm clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes associated with delayed responses to methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy or to the combination of adalimumab (ADA) + MTX.

Methods.

In this posthoc analysis, patients with early RA who received MTX monotherapy or ADA + MTX in the PREMIER study were categorized based on clinical responses at 3 and 6 months [American College of Rheumatology response, 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-C-reactive protein (CRP) improvement and targets]. “Month 3” responders met the clinical measure at both months 3 and 6, and “Month 6” responders met the clinical measure only at Month 6. The odds of achieving longterm outcomes [remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.6), normal function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index < 0.5), or rapid radiographic progression (Δ modified total Sharp score > 3 U/yr)] were modeled using logistic regression, including treatment, response, and interaction.

Results.

A delayed or low-level response was associated with poorer longterm outcomes. Generally, MTX Month 6 responders demonstrated worse clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes than Month 3 MTX and Month 3 or 6 ADA + MTX responders. Although similar longterm benefit was observed for ADA + MTX responders, delayed (Month 6) responders exhibited downward trends in clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes that were comparable with those experienced by Month 3 MTX responders.

Conclusion.

Response speed and magnitude predict longterm outcomes in patients with early RA treated with MTX or ADA + MTX. MTX-treated patients failing to demonstrate a Month 3 clinical response have less-favorable outcomes than other groups, while outcomes in ADA + MTX Month 3 and Month 6 responders tended to be comparable.

Synovitis in patients with early inflammatory arthritis monitored with quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced optical imaging and MR imaging

PURPOSE

To evaluate quantitative perfusion measurements of dynamic indocyanine green (ICG)-enhanced optical imaging for monitoring synovitis in the hands of patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and clinical outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the ethics committee at the institution. Individual joints (n = 840) in the hands and wrists of 28 patients (14 women; mean age, 53.3 years) with inflammatory arthritis were examined at three different time points: before start of therapy and 12 and 24 weeks after start of therapy or therapy escalation. Treatment response was assessed by using clinical measures (simple disease activity index [SDAI]), ICG-enhanced optical imaging, and DCE MR imaging. Dynamic images were obtained for optical imaging and DCE MR imaging. The rate of early enhancement (REE) of the perfusion curves of each joint was calculated by using in-house developed software. Correlation coefficients were estimated to evaluate the associations of changes of imaging parameters and SDAI change.

RESULTS

Quantitative perfusion measurements with optical imaging and MR imaging correctly identified patients who responded (n = 18) and did not respond to therapy (n = 10), as determined by SDAI. The difference of REE after 24 weeks of treatment compared with baseline in responders was significantly reduced in optical imaging and MR imaging (optical imaging: mean, -21.5%; MR imaging: mean, -41.0%; P < .001 for both), while in nonresponders it was increased (optical imaging: mean, 10.8%; P = .075; MR imaging: mean, 8.7%; P = .03). The REE of optical imaging significantly correlated with MR imaging (ρ = 0.80; P < .001) and SDAI (ρ = 0.61; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced optical imaging allows for potential therapeutic monitoring of synovitis in patients with inflammatory arthritis.

Adalimumab added to a treat-to-target strategy with methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone in early rheumatoid arthritis increased remission rates, function and quality of life. The OPERA Study: an investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, treat-to-target protocol (Clinical Trials:NCT00660647) studied whether adalimumab added to methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone as first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) increased the frequency of low disease activity (DAS28CRP<3.2) at 12 months.

METHODS

In 14 Danish hospital-based clinics, 180 disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naïve ERA patients (<6 months duration) received methotrexate 7.5 mg/week (increased to 20 mg/week within 2 months) plus adalimumab 40 mg every other week (adalimumab-group, n=89) or methotrexate+placebo-adalimumab (placebo-group, n=91). At all visits, triamcinolone was injected into swollen joints (max. four joints/visit). If low disease activity was not achieved, sulfasalazine 2 g/day and hydroxychloroquine 200 mg/day were added after 3 months, and open-label biologics after 6-9 months. Efficacy was assessed primarily on the proportion of patients who reached treatment target (DAS28CRP<3.2). Secondary endpoints included DAS28CRP, remission, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EQ-5D and SF-12. Analysis was by intention-to-treat with last observation carried forward.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In the adalimumab group/placebo group the 12-month cumulative triamcinolone doses were 5.4/7.0 ml (p=0.08). Triple therapy was applied in 18/27 patients (p=0.17). At 12 months, DAS28CRP<3.2 was reached in 80%/76% (p=0.65) and DAS28CRP was 2.0 (1.7-5.2) (medians (5th/95th percentile ranges)), versus 2.6 (1.7-4.7) (p=0.009). Remission rates were: DAS28CRP<2.6: 74%/49%, Clinical Disease Activity Index≤2.8: 61%/41%, Simplified Disease Activity Index<3.3: 57%/37%, European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Boolean: 48%/30% (0.0008<p<0.014, number-needed-to-treat: 4.0-5.4). Twelve months HAQ, SF12PCS and EQ-5D improvements were most pronounced in the adalimumab group. Treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adalimumab added to methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone as first-line treatment did not increase the proportion of patients who reached the DAS28CRP<3.2 treatment target, but improved DAS28CRP, remission rates, function and quality of life in DMARD-naïve ERA.

[Systematic literature research for S1 guidelines on sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]

BACKGROUND

On behalf of the German association of Rheumatology national experts developed guidelines for the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. Current evidence was provided with an update of the systematic literature review (SLR). The methods and results of the SLR are presented in this article.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An update of the EULAR SLR for the medical treatment of RA was performed from January 2009 to August 2011. The SLR assessed all controlled studies dealing with the outcome in clinical aspects, function and structure of disease modifying treatment of RA.

RESULTS

Out of 6,869 screened publications, 138 articles and 56 abstracts were considered in the development of the German guidelines on the treatment of RA. A modified set of recommendations was approved in a consensus of national experts.

CONCLUSION

A systematic literature research provided current evidence for the German recommendations on the sequential medical treatment of RA.

[German 2012 guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Adapted EULAR recommendations and updated treatment algorithm]

Following the EULAR recommendations published in 2010 German guidelines for the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were developed based on an update of the systematic literature search and expert consensus. Methotrexate is the standard treatment option at the time of diagnosis, preferably in combination with low dose glucocorticoids. Combined disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy should be considered in patients not responding within 12 weeks. Treatment with biologicals should be initiated in patients with persistent high activity no later than 6 months after conventional treatment and in exceptional situations (e.g. early destruction or unfavorable prognosis) even earlier. If treatment with biologicals remains ineffective, changing to another biological is recommended after 3-6 months. In cases of long-standing remission a controlled reduction of medical treatment can be considered.

Matrix to predict rapid radiographic progression of early rheumatoid arthritis patients from the community treated with methotrexate or leflunomide: results from the ESPOIR cohort

Introduction

Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients may show rapid radiographic progression (RRP) despite rapid initiation of synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The present study aimed to develop a matrix to predict risk of RRP despite early DMARD initiation in real life settings.

Methods

The ESPOIR cohort included 813 patients from the community with early arthritis for < 6 months; 370 patients had early RA and had received methotrexate or leflunomide during the first year of follow-up. RRP was defined as an increase in the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score (vSHS) ≥ 5 points at 1 year. Determinants of RRP were examined first by bivariate analysis, then multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis. A visual matrix model was then developed to predict RRP in terms of patient baseline characteristics.

Results

We analyzed data for 370 patients. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 5.4 ± 1.2, 18.1% of patients had typical RA erosion on radiographs and 86.4% satisfied the 2010 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism. During the first year, mean change in vSHS was 1.6 ± 5.5, and 41 patients (11.1%) showed RRP. A multivariate logistic regression model enabled the development of a matrix predicting RRP in terms of baseline swollen joint count, C-reactive protein level, anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies status, and erosions seen on radiography for patients with early RA who received DMARDs.

Conclusions

The ESPOIR matrix may be a useful clinical practice tool to identify patients with early RA at high risk of RRP despite early DMARD initiation.

[Early and advanced rheumatoid arthritis. Diagnosis and state of the art therapy strategy]

The diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often based on classification criteria. In 2010 ACR and EULAR presented new classification criteria for RA which allow patients with a high risk for persistent, chronic and erosive arthritis and therefore fulfill the current definition of RA, to be defined. Therapy of RA should be initiated as early as possible. Methotrexate remains the first-line therapy of RA. In patients showing insufficient response of RA, biological agents have been demonstrated to be an effective second-line therapy. It is essential to define and follow an individual treatment target to obtain remission or low disease activity. This target should be reassessed regularly and treatment should be correspondingly adapted to achieve the target.

Biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: where are we now?

Since the introduction of targeted biological therapies, the implications of a new diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis have changed dramatically. There are now several therapeutic options available for these patients and the target of treatment - remission - is now a realistic goal.

Different thresholds for detecting osteophytes and joint space narrowing exist between the site investigators and the centralized reader in a multicenter knee osteoarthritis study--data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the reading of knee radiographs by site investigators differs from that by an expert musculoskeletal radiologist who trained and validated them in a multicenter knee osteoarthritis (OA) study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A subset of participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative progression cohort was studied. Osteophytes and joint space narrowing (JSN) were evaluated using Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) grading. Radiographs were read by site investigators, who received training and validation of their competence by an expert musculoskeletal radiologist. Radiographs were re-read by this radiologist, who acted as a central reader. For KL and OARSI grading of osteophytes, discrepancies between two readings were adjudicated by another expert reader.

RESULTS

Radiographs from 96 subjects (49 women) and 192 knees (138 KL grade ≥ 2) were included. The site reading showed moderate agreement for KL grading overall (kappa = 0.52) and for KL ≥ 2 (i.e., radiographic diagnosis of "definite OA"; kappa = 0.41). For OARSI grading, the site reading showed substantial agreement for lateral and medial JSN (kappa = 0.65 and 0.71), but only fair agreement for osteophytes (kappa = 0.37). For KL grading, the adjudicator's reading showed substantial agreement with the centralized reading (kappa = 0.62), but only slight agreement with the site reading (kappa = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Site investigators over-graded osteophytes compared to the central reader and the adjudicator. Different thresholds for scoring of JSN exist even between experts. Our results suggest that research studies using radiographic grading of OA should use a centralized reader for all grading.

Efficacy of leflunomide addition in relation to prognostic factors for patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis failing to methotrexate in daily practice

The recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) suggest a different therapeutic approach to methotrexate (MTX) resistance according to the presence or absence of poor prognostic factors. Retrospectively, in our patients with active early RA (disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) > 3.2) that failed to respond to initial MTX monotherapy, we investigated whether leflunomide (LEF) addition had a different efficacy when associated with the presence or absence of poor prognostic factors. Of the 20 patients who received LEF, 15 (2 males and 13 females) tolerated the combination. Five patients had no poor prognostic factors, and 4 (80%) of those patients achieved remission or low disease activity (LDA) according to DAS28 and also a good response with the EULAR criteria. Of the 10 patients with at least one poor prognostic factor, remission or LDA occurred in 4 (40%) of the patients, and a good EULAR response was obtained in 3 (30%) of the patients. By Fisher's exact test, no significant difference was found between the two groups of patients in remission or LDA (p = 0.28) according to DAS28 and a good response (p = 0.12) with the EULAR criteria. In all patients with an inadequate response to the LEF+MTX combination, the substitution of a TNF inhibitor for LEF or the addition of a TNF inhibitor to the combination led to remission or LDA. Large studies are required to investigate the efficacy of LEF addition in relation to prognostic factors in patients with active early RA that did not respond to the initial therapy with MTX alone.