THU0121 Comparison of MTX Therapy with or without A Moderate Dose Glucocorticoid Bridging Scheme in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Lacking Classical Poor Prognostic Markers: Week 16 Results from the Randomized Multicenter Carera Trial

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.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care.

DATA SOURCES

Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease.

LIMITATIONS

TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients).

CONCLUSION

In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The optimal combination therapy for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune condition traditionally viewed as a severe destructive disease affecting physical health and global wellbeing. The treatment strategies for RA have changed in the last decades from mainly symptomatic towards a more vigorous and targeted approach.

AREA COVERED

Reviewing recent literature enhanced by own expertise and research, a case is made for starting early with an intensive combination treatment with glucocorticoids, followed by a treat to target approach in a tight control setting. Implementation issues that need to be addressed to make optimal use of the 'window of opportunity' are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

There is strong evidence in favor of traditional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) combined with a remission induction scheme of glucocorticoids to achieve adequate efficacy in controlling early rheumatoid arthritis with good safety and feasibility in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the most optimal RA treatment should address not only the physician-oriented clinical disease outcomes but also the patient perspective. There is still a need for working on improving implementation of this approach in daily practice in order to provide optimal treatment benefit to more patients.