Survival differences in rheumatoid arthritis interstitial lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis may be explained by delays in presentation: results from multivariate analysis in a monocentric UK study

Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) has a better prognosis compared to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Recent data suggest that antifibrotics are effective in slowing progression across both groups. Hence, we designed this study to investigate the similarities and differences between these groups of patients. This is a retrospective cohort study examining baseline data, progression and outcomes in patients with RA-ILD and IPF prior to antifibrotic use in the Coventry ILD database. Ethics approval was obtained from the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. Statistical analysis was performed using R software and Cox's proportional hazards technique was used for survival analysis. We identified 131 cases, including 49 patients with IPF, 34 patients with RA-ILD and 48 patients with other forms of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. At baseline, there were significant differences in the groups with RA-ILD patients being significantly younger (65.7 vs 72.4 years), had preserved lung volumes (FVC 95% vs 84.7%) and higher gas transfer (61.5% vs 48.2%) compared to IPF patients. 5-year survival was better for RA-ILD compared to IPF (87.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.0042). Univariate analysis revealed gas transfer, FVC, age, sex and phenotype (IPF or RA-ILD) were all significant predictors, but multivariate analysis revealed that gas transfer and age were both significantly associated with prognosis, whereas sex, FVC or phenotype were not significant. This study suggests that the difference between RA-ILD and IPF prognosis may be due to demographics and early diagnosis rather than the diseases behaving differently. This has important management implications.

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.

Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines provide few complementary and alternative medicine therapy recommendations: a systematic review

Sixty percent of patients with arthritis have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies at least once. The two most common types of arthritis include rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). The quality and quantity of CAM recommendations for RA and OA is currently unknown. The purpose of this research was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of RA and OA. A systematic review was conducted to identify CPGs; MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Three independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting for each guideline that provided CAM recommendations, and the specific section providing CAM recommendations, using the AGREE II instrument. From 525 unique search results, seven guidelines (3 OA, 4 RA) mentioned CAM and 5 guidelines made CAM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were (overall, CAM) as follows: clarity of presentation (92.2% vs. 94.1%), scope and purpose (90.1% vs. 87.4%), rigour of development (72.6% vs. 64.2%), stakeholder involvement (64.8% vs. 49.6%), editorial independence (61.1% vs. 60.6%), and applicability (51.4% vs. 33.3%). None of the 5 guidelines was recommended by both appraisers for either the overall guideline or CAM section. For the overall guideline, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for 3 of 5 guidelines, including 3 Yes with modifications; of the remaining 2 guidelines, 1 was rated by the three appraisers as 1 No and 2 Yes with modifications, while 1 guideline was rated at 2 Yes and 1 Yes with modifications. For the CAM section, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for all 5 guidelines including 1 No, and 4 Yes with modifications. Roughly half of arthritis CPGs found included in this review provided CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations are of lower quality than overall recommendations across the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains. Quality varied within and across guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment sequences containing tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib-containing treatment sequences versus sequences containing only standard biological therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR population) and in patients previously treated with methotrexate (MTX) who show an inadequate response to second-line therapy with any tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi-IR population).

Methods

A patient-level microsimulation model estimated, from the perspective of the Spanish Public NHS, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences starting with tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) followed by biological therapies versus sequences of biological treatments only. Concomitant treatment with MTX was considered. Model’s parameters comprised demographic and clinical inputs (initial Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score and clinical response to short- and long-term treatment). Efficacy was measured by means of HAQ score changes using mixed treatment comparisons and data from long-term extension (LTE) trials. Serious adverse events (SAEs) data were derived from the literature. Total cost estimation (€, 2018) included drug acquisition, parenteral administration, disease progression and SAE management.

Results

In the csDMARD-IR population, sequences starting with tofacitinib proved dominant options (more QALYs and lower costs) versus the corresponding sequences without tofacitinib. In the TNFi-IR population, first-line treatment with tofacitinib+MTX followed by scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX proved dominant versus scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX; and tofacitinib+MTX➔scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX versus scTocilizumab+MTX➔scAbatacept+MTX➔rituximab+MTX➔certolizumab+MTX was less effective but remained a cost-saving option.

Conclusions

Inclusion of tofacitinib seems a dominant strategy in moderate-to-severe RA patients after csDMARDs failure. Tofacitinib, as initial third-line therapy, proved a cost-saving strategy (€− 337,489/QALY foregone) in moderate-to-severe TNFi-IR RA patients.

Key points • Therapeutical approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consisted in sequences of several therapies during patient lifetime. • Treatment sequences initiating with tofacitinib followed by biological drugs provided higher health effects in csDMARDs-IR population, compared with sequences containing only biological drugs. • In both csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR RA populations, initiating treatment with tofacitinib was associated to lower treatment costs for the Spanish National Health System.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective. Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust. Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan. Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

How to Get the Most from Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment for Your Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient?-MTX in the Treat-to-Target Strategy

Methotrexate (MTX) is a remarkable drug with a key role in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at every stage of its evolution. Its attributes include good overall efficacy for signs and symptoms, inhibition of structural damage and preservation of function with acceptable and manageable safety, a large dose-titratable range, options for either an oral or parenteral route of administration, and currently unrivalled cost-effectiveness. It has a place as a monotherapy and also as an anchor drug that can be safely used in combination with other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or used concomitantly with biological DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. MTX is not without potential issues regarding toxicity, notably hepatotoxicity and bone marrow toxicity, as well as tolerability problems for some, but not all, patients. But many of these issues can be mitigated or managed. In the face of a welcome expansion in available targeted therapies for the treatment of RA, MTX looks set to remain at the foundation of pharmacotherapy for the majority of people living with RA and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases. In this article, we provide an evidence-based discussion as to how to achieve the best outcomes with this versatile drug in the context of a treat-to-target strategy for the management of RA.

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.

Does intensive management improve remission rates in patients with intermediate rheumatoid arthritis? (the TITRATE trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Uncontrolled active rheumatoid arthritis can lead to increasing disability and reduced quality of life over time. ‘Treating to target’ has been shown to be effective in active established disease and also in early disease. However, there is a lack of nationally agreed treatment protocols for patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have intermediate disease activity. This trial is designed to investigate whether intensive management of disease leads to a greater number of remissions at 12 months. Levels of disability and quality of life, and acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the intervention will also be examined.

Methods

The trial is a 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre trial undertaken at specialist rheumatology centres across England. Three hundred and ninety-eight patients with established rheumatoid arthritis will be recruited. They will currently have intermediate disease activity (disease activity score for 28 joints assessed using an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 3.2 to 5.1 with at least three active joints) and will be taking at least one disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug.

Participants will be randomly selected to receive intensive management or standard care. Intensive management will involve monthly clinical reviews with a specialist health practitioner, where drug treatment will be optimised and an individualised treatment support programme delivered based on several principles of motivational interviewing to address identified problem areas, such as pain, fatigue and adherence. Standard care will follow standard local pathways and will be in line with current English guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patients will be assessed initially and at 6 and 12 months through self-completed questionnaires and clinical evaluation.

Discussion

The trial will establish whether the known benefits of intensive treatment strategies in active rheumatoid arthritis are also seen in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have moderately active disease. It will evaluate both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intensive treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN70160382. Registered on 16 January 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2330-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Review on the Influence of Protocol Design on Clinical Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Rituximab

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyze the influence of protocol design on clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with rituximab.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed and EMBASE search (January 2000-January 2012) using the key words rheumatoid arthritis and rituximab was performed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

A search of English-language studies from the data sources was conducted for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with 100 patients or more assessing the efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of RA. From these studies, 2 authors independently extracted, compiled, and aggregated the data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, some patients had not been treated with tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitors, while most did not respond to it. The variables compared included dose (500 vs 1000 mg), duration of study (24 vs 48 weeks), and number of cycles (1 vs 2). They were statistically analyzed using the χ2 test. There was a statistically significant difference in the response to rituximab compared to the control (methotrexate) (p < 0.001). In patients who were studied for only 24 weeks, given 500 or 1000 mg for 1 or 2 cycles, a 90% or greater response rate was reported in those who achieved an ACR 20, but no statistically significant differences were observed (p = 0.75). In patients studied for 48 weeks who received 2 cycles of either 500 mg or 1000 mg of rituximab and achieved an ACR 20, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed in those who received a dose of 1000 mg for 2 cycles (42.77% vs 67.49%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are nonresponsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and TNF-α inhibitors, rituximab may be a promising and well-tolerated biologic agent. The capacity of rituximab to produce long-term, sustained remissions could not be evaluated because the duration of the studies was limited to 24 weeks or 48 weeks. Studies with longer periods of observation are warranted.

Optimal responses in disease activity scores to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: Is a DAS28 reduction of >1.2 sufficient?

Background

The overall benefit of intensive treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains uncertain. We explored how reductions in disability and improvements in quality of life scores are affected by alternative assessments of reductions in disease activity scores for 28 joints (DAS28) in two trials of intensive treatment strategies in active RA.

Methods

One trial (CARDERA) studied 467 patients with early active RA receiving 24 months of methotrexate monotherapy or steroid and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) combinations. The other trial (TACIT) studied 205 patients with established active RA; they received 12 months of treatment with DMARD combinations or biologic agents. We compared changes in the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and Euroqol-5D (EQ5D) at trial endpoints in European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good and moderate EULAR responders in patients in whom complete endpoint data were available.

Results

In the CARDERA trial 98 patients (26 %) were good EULAR responders and 160 (32 %) were EULAR moderate responders; comparable data in TACIT were 66 (35 %) and 86 (46 %) patients. The magnitude of change in the HAQ and EQ5D was greater in both trials in EULAR good responders than in EULAR moderate responders. HAQ scores had a difference in of –0.49 (95 % CI –0.66, –0.32) in the CARDERA and –0.31 (95 % CI –0.47, –0.13) in the TACIT trial. With the EQ5D comparable differences were 0.12 (95 % CI 0.04, 0.19) and 0.15 (95 % CI 0.05, 0.25). Both exceeded minimum clinically important differences in HAQ and EQ5D scores.

Conclusions

We conclude that achieving a good EULAR response with DMARDs and biologic agents in active RA results in substantially improved mean HAQ and EQ5D scores. Patients who achieve such responses should continue on treatment. However, continuing such treatment strategies is more challenging when only a moderate EULAR response is achieved. In these patients evidence of additional clinically important benefits in measures such as the HAQ should also be sought.

Evaluating patient reported outcomes in routine practice of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs (b-DMARDs)

Objectives

In this study the concordance between the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) and the Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) was investigated in a clinical routine outpatient setting.

Patients and methods

A sample of 150 adult patients with stable RA treated with biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) was asked to complete the RAPID3 (digital or on paper) just before their outpatient routine visit during which DAS28 assessment took place. The RAPID3 correlation with and the agreement in four DAS28 categories was studied using Spearman’s rank order and Cohen’s observed kappa statistics respectively. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated to test whether RAPID3 could make distinction in active disease (DAS28 >3.2) or not.

Results

A moderate correlation (ρ 0.576) and a poor kappa value of 0.13 were found in the whole study population. Patients reported a higher disease severity than was measured by DAS28. The PPV of RAPID3 for active disease by DAS28 was 0.59 (95 % CI 0.50–0.68) and the NPV was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.75–0.98) with a sensitivity and specificity of 96 and 40 % respectively.

Discussion

While RAPID3 correlates to some extent with DAS28 at the group level, agreement between RAPID3 and DAS28 at the individual patient level is to poor to rely on RAPID3 results in monitoring patients with RA. RAPID3 tends to over-report disease activity as assessed by DAS28.

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.

A systematic review of the influence of anti-TNF on infection rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The present article aims to provide a systematic review of the influence of antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) on infection rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHOD

Medline was searched to obtain quality control information on infection rates in RA patients treated with anti-TNF.

RESULTS

A high proportion of RA patients are now established users of anti-TNF agents. Data from national registries in European countries of patients with RA treated with anti-TNF suggest that biological therapies are closely linked to sepsis. Although previous studies reported a higher risk of infections, there are now emerging data with longer duration of follow-up that suggested an adjusted hazard risk of 1.2. Elderly patients and those with longstanding disease may have a higher rate of serious infections compared to their counterparts who were younger with early disease. There are now emerging data to suggest that anti-TNF therapy is associated with the development of neutropenia shortly after the commencement of treatment. The biologic registries found that RA patients treated with monoclonal antibodies are at increased risk of tuberculosis (TB) compared to those on TNF receptor blockers. This risk of infection needs to be weighed against the established benefits of TNF blockers.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that anti-TNF treatment in RA is closely linked to infection. Patients need to be aware of the risk of infection together with the established benefits of TNF blockers in order to give informed consent for treatment.

Adding a "GRADE" to the quality appraisal of rheumatoid arthritis guidelines identifies limitations beyond AGREE-II

OBJECTIVES

To assess how well treatment recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) address Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) steps and determine whether these steps can be adequately appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically reviewed English-language treatment recommendations for the pharmacologic management of RA since 2000, assessed how well GRADE steps were addressed, rated AGREE-II quality, and compared the findings.

RESULTS

GRADE steps were poorly addressed by the 44 included guidelines. Few guidelines discussed study limitations and/or risk of bias (23%), inconsistency (50%), indirectness (39%), imprecision (23%), or potential for publication bias (0%). Observational evidence was cited in 96% but rarely evaluated systematically. Only one guideline considered evidence on patients' preferences for health outcomes, and few provided an explicit justification for the strength of evidence or recommendation. The five GRADE steps that overlapped with AGREE-II questions were addressed more frequently (by 54-100% of guidelines) than the 13 GRADE steps not directly assessed by AGREE-II (0-50%). Among the nine guidelines rated as "Recommended for use" by AGREE-II, 8 of 13 GRADE steps were not addressed consistently by any guideline.

CONCLUSION

GRADE's steps are poorly addressed by RA recommendations. AGREE-II provides a broad assessment of quality but lacks sufficient granularity to assess how well a guideline addresses GRADE's steps.

The perplexity of prescribing and switching of biologic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a UK regional audit of practice

BACKGROUND

Biologic drugs are expensive treatments used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Switching among them is common practice in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerable adverse events. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) UK, which aims to curtail postcode prescribing, has provided guidance on the sequential prescription of these drugs. This study sought to evaluate the extent to which rheumatology centres across the Midlands were complying with NICE guidance on the switching of biologic drugs in RA, as well as analyse the various prescribing patterns of these drugs.

METHODS

Data was collected via a web-based tool on RA patients who had undergone at least one switch of a biologic drug during 2011. The standards specified in NICE technology appraisals (TA130, TA186, TA195, TA198, and TA225) were used to assess compliance with NICE guidance. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

There were 335 biologic drug switches in 317 patients. The most common reason given for switching to a drug was NICE guidelines (242, 72.2%), followed by Physician's choice (122, 33.4%). Lack of effect was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug (224, 67%). For patients on Rituximab, Methotrexate was used in 133 switches (76.9% of the time). Overall NICE compliance for all units was 65% (range 50 to 100%), with anti-TNFα to anti-TNFα switches for inefficacy making up the majority of non-compliant switches.

CONCLUSION

This study draws attention to the enigma and disparity of commissioning and prescribing of biologic drugs in RA. Currently the evidence would not support switching of a biologic drug for non-clinical purposes such as economic pressures. Flexibility in prescribing should be encouraged: biologic therapy should be individualised based on the mode of action and likely tolerability of these drugs. Further work should focus on the evidence for using particular sequences of biologic drugs.

TNF and TNF-receptors: From mediators of cell death and inflammation to therapeutic giants - past, present and future

Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF), initially known for its tumor cytotoxicity, is a potent mediator of inflammation, as well as many normal physiological functions in homeostasis and health, and anti-microbial immunity. It also appears to have a central role in neurobiology, although this area of TNF biology is only recently emerging. Here, we review the basic biology of TNF and its normal effector functions, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of therapeutic neutralization of TNF - now a commonplace practice in the treatment of a wide range of human inflammatory diseases. With over ten years of experience, and an emerging range of anti-TNF biologics now available, we also review their modes of action, which appear to be far more complex than had originally been anticipated. Finally, we highlight the current challenges for therapeutic intervention of TNF: (i) to discover and produce orally delivered small molecule TNF-inhibitors, (ii) to specifically target selected TNF producing cells or individual (diseased) tissue targets, and (iii) to pre-identify anti-TNF treatment responders. Although the future looks bright, the therapeutic modulation of TNF now moves into the era of personalized medicine with society's challenging expectations of durable treatment success and of achieving long-term disease remission.

Retrospective evaluation of continuation rates following a switch to subcutaneous methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients failing to respond to or tolerate oral methotrexate: the MENTOR study

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate continuation rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed to respond to or tolerate oral methotrexate (MTX) and were subsequently switched to subcutaneous MTX (SC MTX) in routine clinical practice.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with RA who had been prescribed SC MTX following oral MTX at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and had been captured on the hospital pharmacy database of MTX use between 17 May 2011 and 20 March 2012. Only patients for whom complete records were available before and for at least 6 months after the switch were included.

RESULTS

A total of 196 patients were included in the analysis (75.5% women; mean age at diagnosis 47.4 years; mean duration of oral MTX therapy 6.6 years). Patients were changed from oral to SC MTX because of lack of efficacy (50.5%), adverse events (43.9%), or other/unknown reasons (5.6%). High continuation rates were seen, with 83.0% of patients analysed still on SC MTX at 1 year, 75.2% at 2 years, and 47.0% at 5 years. Following the switch to SC MTX, < 10% of patients were prescribed additional biologic therapy during the first and second year because of an insufficient response.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SC MTX results in high continuation rates in patients who fail to respond to or tolerate oral MTX. Consequently, management guidelines should be adapted to include advice that SC MTX should be used before biologic therapy and that MTX failure is defined as failure only when use of SC MTX has failed.

High rate of disease remission in moderate rheumatoid arthritis on etanercept therapy: data from GISEA, the Italian biologics register

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with moderate or severe disease activity. We analyzed data from the Italian biologics register Gruppo Italiano Studio Early Arthritides (GISEA) to investigate the rate of disease remission and functional improvement, based on the 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and the (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score in RA patients with moderate or severe disease activity beginning etanercept therapy. Disease was defined as severe (H-RA) with DAS28 ≥5.1 and moderate (M-RA) with DAS28 ≥3.2 to 5.1 at baseline. Patients were considered in remission if DAS28 was ≤2.6, and HAQ ≤0.5 defined normal function. We enrolled 953 RA patients, 320 with M-RA and 633 H-RA. Age and disease duration were similar in the two cohorts, but H-RA patients had significantly more comorbidities (p < 0.01) and took significantly more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (p < 0.001) than M-RA patients. After 1 year, the percentage of patients achieving disease remission and normal function (DAS28 ≤2.6 plus HAQ ≤0.5) was higher in M-RA (21.4 %) than in H-RA patients (14.8 %, p = 0.007), regardless of the disease duration. Additionally, female gender (p = 0.006) and H-RA class (p = 0.002) negatively predicted disease remission at 1 year. However, the drug survival rate did not differ between the two subsets. This study confirms that etanercept was effective in the treatment of active RA, but best response, in terms of disease remission and normal function ability, was greater and easier to attain in M-RA patients. These findings may aid clinicians to choose the best strategy to treat RA.

Cost-minimisation analysis of subcutaneous methotrexate versus biologic therapy for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an insufficient response or intolerance to oral methotrexate

This study aims to model the economic impact of subcutaneous methotrexate (SC MTX) or a biologic over a 12-month period using a hypothetical population of rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed to tolerate or respond to oral MTX and were suitable candidates for biologic therapy. A decision-based model was developed using current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance to determine the management of this hypothetical UK population. Published data on the continuation rates of SC MTX and biologics were used to compare the costs of the two treatment options. The economic model used a cost-minimisation methodology from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with the cost of all drugs and resources being estimated on this basis. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to determine the effects of changing key assumptions on the mean cost differences. The routine use of SC MTX following oral MTX failure has the potential to save an estimated £7,197 per patient in the first year of therapy and £9.3m per year nationally in new patients. Sensitivity analyses support the robustness of the results. The results of this study suggest that routine use of SC MTX following oral MTX failure has the potential to provide considerable savings to the NHS through optimised use of MTX first-line therapy. It is proposed, therefore, that patients should start on oral MTX with a subsequent switch to SC MTX in the case of an insufficient response or tolerability issues, before introducing a biologic agent.

Same-day or historical ESR for disease activity score measurement: does it matter?

Several guidelines recommended routine use of Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) to monitor disease and the response to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In practice, it may be appropriate to use historical erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) values in place of same-day ESR, thereby preventing unnecessary delay in adjusting intervention. We asked whether ESR blood samples taken up to 3 months prior to the clinic appointment were adequate to accurately assess RA disease activity using the DAS28. RA patients (N = 66) who met the inclusion criteria were assessed at baseline and ESR obtained on the day of review to calculate the DAS28 and compared with the DAS28 derived from the latest previous ESR (mean interval, 38.6 days; range, 6-99 days). Limits of agreement (LoA) were used to assess the agreement between the DAS28 pairs. The mean age of the participants was 61.5 years (range, 20-83 years), with mean disease duration of 11.0 years (range, 0.1-40 years). Comparing the DAS28 using same-day ESR versus pre-recorded historical ESR showed a small statistical difference (mean, -0.09; 95 %CI, -0.1602 to -0.017) in the DAS28 score. The calculated LoA (-0.66 and 0.48) demonstrated acceptable agreement between DAS28 pairs, with 7.6 % of patients residing outside the LoA, all of whom had a significant treatment change. Disease misclassification occurred in 9.1 % of patients who were close to disease activity boundaries. Our results indicate that differences in the DAS28 due to a previous or same-day ESR are unlikely to be clinically significant for RA patients with established disease. A decision to adjust treatment therefore may be confidently made for most patients using the most recent ESR for calculating the DAS28, provided there was no major change in treatment since the last ESR measurement.

Economical aspect of biological therapy in inflammatory conditions in Hungary

INTRODUCTION

There has been a burst in the use of biological therapies in the past decade resulting in increasing costs. In 2006 - 2010 the following biological agents were available in Hungary: adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, and ustekinumab. All biological agents except rituximab were first line therapies; rituximab was a second line option in rheumatoid arthritis.

AREAS COVERED

Data of the financing system related to health care services from the data warehouse of the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund were in inflammatory conditions. Our analysis showed a constant increase in number of patients and overall cost of biological therapy as well as annual cost of biological agents. Distribution of first choice of biological therapy was compared in different diseases. Time from diagnosis to start of biological therapy showed relatively high deviations.

EXPERT OPINION

In order to achieve both health benefit and cost-effectiveness it is crucial that biological therapy is initiated early enough in the course of the disease, after the failure of non-biological therapies. Health authorities in close collaboration with clinical decision-makers should ensure that early detection of the disease and early initiation of appropriate therapies-including non-biological and biological therapies-are carried out in the health care systems.

Measures in rheumatoid arthritis: are we measuring too many parameters

The disease activity measures in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a lot of unmet need for current clinical demand. With available biological and aggressive disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy, the goal of RA treatment has moved toward remission or at least tighter control. The current measures lose their ability to discriminate further once the patient gets into minimal disease or tight control. There are more numbers of parameters, measured to assess disease activity, like joint counts, perception scales and laboratory parameters. There are different composite scores like Disease Activity Score, American College of Rheumatology criteria and clinical disease activity index. In this review we have reviewed the evolution of and changing need for these measures. The relevance of some measures and their use and limitations with reference to various characteristics are presented. Inflammation measures to quantify the RA process is the best way to monitor RA disease activity. C-reactive protein alone or with other biomarkers to specify RA, appear to be good prospective measures.

Lessons for the use of non-biologic anchor treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biologic therapies

Optimizing the use of key non-biologic drugs (MTX, prednisone) may prolong disease control, thereby delaying the need for costly biologic therapies. A number of lessons about the optimal use of therapy emerge from clinical studies. Clinical outcomes with non-biologic treatments, given early in the course of the disease, are as good as with biologic treatments. Combinations of treatments are usually required to achieve rapid and sustained remission. MTX remains an important anchor drug for RA therapy and should be given as soon as the diagnosis is made. As early disease control is important, the dose of MTX should be escalated rapidly to adequate levels. Tolerability of MTX is generally good relative to that of other alternative treatments. MTX (s.c.) may be considered if the response to oral MTX is inadequate or MTX is poorly tolerated. In addition to suppressing signs and symptoms of RA, glucocorticoids appear to have disease-modifying effects, at least in early RA. The disease-modifying effects of glucocorticoids probably persist after discontinuation of therapy. The risk of adverse effects of low-dose glucocorticoids is often overestimated. Administration of low-dose glucocorticoids in accordance with physiological circadian rhythms may bring efficacy and safety benefits. As a case in point, the CAMERA (Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) II study applied these lessons and has clearly shown the benefits of optimizing MTX and prednisone therapy.

Economic benefits of optimizing anchor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

The total cost of RA is substantial, particularly in patients with high levels of disability. There are considerable differences in cost between countries, driven in part by differences in the use of biologic therapies. Economic evaluations are needed to assess the extra cost of using these treatments and the benefits obtained, to ensure appropriate allocation of limited health care resources. The BeSt trial, evaluating four treatment strategies, found comparable medium-term efficacy but substantially higher costs with early biologic therapy. A systematic review of such cost-effectiveness analyses concluded that biologic therapy should be used after therapy has failed with less costly alternatives such as synthetic DMARDs and glucocorticoids. Optimizing such relatively low-cost therapy to improve outcomes may delay the need for biologic therapy, thereby saving costs. A simple model has confirmed the value of this approach. The addition of modified-release prednisone 5 mg/day to existing synthetic DMARD therapy in patients with active disease resulted in improvement in DAS-28 to below the threshold level for initiation of reimbursed biologic therapy in 28-34% of patients. On a conservative estimate (i.e. assuming no further benefits beyond the 12 weeks of the study and a 12-week wait-and-see approach to starting biologic therapy), cost savings amounted to nearly € 400 per patient. While treatment decisions should never be based only on cost considerations, prolonging disease control by optimizing the use of non-biologic treatments may bring benefits to patients and also economic benefits by delaying the need for biologic treatments.

Biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis--negotiating the NICE technology appraisals

In England and Wales, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has provided guidance [technology appraisals (TAs) 130, 186, 195, 198 and 225] on the use of biologic drugs for the treatment of RA. This is based on an analysis of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness, and has resulted in a complex management pathway that restricts freedom to prescribe biologics according to their licensed indications. Specifically, TNF antagonists are the only class of biologics that can be used first line in DMARD-inadequate responders, and only in patients with a persistent 28-joint DAS score of ≥5.1. Alternative biologic agents are denied to those with contraindications to anti-TNF drugs and are also not supported following intolerance to TNF antagonists. Rituximab is the only class of biologic permitted after TNF antagonist inefficacy, in the absence of a contraindication to its use, whereas abatacept and tocilizumab are licensed and may be a more efficacious choice at this stage in some patient groups. Furthermore, for patients who demonstrate sequential inadequate responses, treatment is restricted to one TNF antagonist, rituximab and tocilizumab, whereas abatacept is only a permitted choice when rituximab is contraindicated or has been withdrawn because of an adverse event. In this review, we discuss the treatment algorithm published by NICE, and suggest alternatives where perceived deficiencies exist.

Patterns of biologic agent utilization among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The role of biologic therapies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has expanded, but dosing patterns in the first versus subsequent lines of therapy have not been thoroughly explored.

METHODS

In order to describe patterns of biologic agent utilization among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, health care claims data on use of abatacept, rituximab, or the anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in first- or subsequent-line settings were used to form patient cohorts. Variables included: starting dose (first administration or fill), maintenance dose (third administration or fill), average dose, dose escalation, inter-infusion interval, and discontinuation (gap in therapy > 60 days or switch). Time to discontinuation was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Over 1 year, average (SD) doses of first-line etanercept (N = 1593; 45.4 [8.8] mg/week), adalimumab (N = 1040; 40.7 [10.4] mg/2 weeks), and abatacept (N = 360; 715.4 [214.5] mg/4 weeks) were similar to the starting and maintenance doses; the average infliximab dose (N = 538; 441.0 [209.2] mg/8 weeks) was greater than the starting and maintenance doses. Trends in the subsequent-line anti-TNF cohorts were similar. The percentages with a dose escalation or discontinuation were greater in the subsequent-line anti-TNF cohorts. The proportion with a dose escalation was greatest for the infliximab cohorts (61.2% first-line and 80.2% subsequent-line). The average period between abatacept infusions was 4.8 [1.4] weeks (4-week approved schedule); and 6.8 [2.6] months between rituximab courses (currently approved schedule is 6 months). Time to discontinuation was significantly shorter for subsequent-line than first-line anti-TNF therapy (median 9.7 vs. 12.5 mo; p < 0.001). The hazard ratio for discontinuing subsequent-line versus first-line anti-TNF therapy was 1.177 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Subsequent-line anti-TNF therapy cohorts had higher rates of discontinuation, dose escalation, and shorter time to discontinuation than first-line anti-TNF cohorts.

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part 1 is reported here.

METHODS

The CRA Therapeutics Committee assembled a national working group of RA clinical experts, researchers, patient consumers, and a general practitioner. Treatment questions were developed a priori based on results of a national needs assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the grey literature. Guideline quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers, and guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The full working group reviewed the evidence tables and developed recommendations using a modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Five overarching principles and 26 recommendations addressing general RA management strategies and treatment with glucocorticoids and traditional and biologic DMARD were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and patients with RA.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus considering the Canadian healthcare context with the intention of promoting best practices and improving healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

In patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis, ACPA positivity, younger age and inefficacy of the first non-biological DMARD are predictors for receiving biological therapy: results from the Norfolk Arthritis Register

Objectives

To identify baseline disease-related predictors in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis (IP) for starting subsequent biological therapy and to determine if patients who failed their first non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) within 6 months were more likely to need biological therapy.

Methods

Patients with early IP recruited between 1990 and 1994 (cohort 1) and between 2000 and 2004 (cohort 2) in the Norfolk Arthritis Register were included in this study. The association between possible predictors with the start of biological therapy was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

32/407 (7.9%) patients in cohort 1 and 45/416 (10.8%) patients in cohort 2 received biological therapy during follow-up. In both cohorts, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positivity (cohort 1, HR 7.62, 95% CI 2.46 to 23.58; cohort 2, HR 4.68, 95% CI 2.23 to 9.78) was the strongest predictor for starting biological therapy. In cohort 2, younger patients (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99) and patients who failed their first non-biological DMARD within 6 months due to inefficacy were also more likely to receive biological therapy (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.05 to 5.27).

Conclusion

Patients with early IP who are ACPA positive, are younger or who fail their first non-biological DMARD due to inefficacy within 6 months are more likely to need biological therapy.