Number needed to treat (NNT): implication in rheumatology clinical practice

The Safety of Antirheumatic Drugs

Background

Drug therapy for rheumatic diseases has changed fundamentally in recent decades with the introduction of many new agents. As these drugs may have to be taken for many years, and many of them are of similar efficacy, the safety profiles of the individual substances play an important role in therapeutic decision-making.

Method

This review is based on pertinent literature retrieved by a selective search on the safety profiles of selected antirheumatic drugs.

Results

Non-steroidal antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, conventional disease-modifying drugs such as methotrexate, biological agents, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are all used to treat rheumatic diseases. Register and trial data show that antirheumatic treatments are relatively safe. Infections, in particular, are much less common than initially expected. Cortisone administration is an exception because of its severe long-term sequelae. Biological agents are associated with severe infectious events at a rate of 4–5 events per 100 patient years. Screening before treatment with biological agents has been shown to lower the rate of tuberculosis from 564 to 95 cases per 100 000 patient years. JAK inhibitors have a good safety profile, with respect to infections as well, but there is evidence of their association with cardiovascular problems, malignancies, and thrombosis.

Conclusion

A suitable, safe antirheumatic drug can be chosen for each patient in consideration of individual risk profiles. Regular monitoring enables the early detection of adverse effects. The risk profile of JAK inhibitors, in particular, will be studied in further trials.

Pain characteristics and biomarkers in treatment approaches for osteoarthritis pain

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive disease and OA pain intensity is related to ongoing pathophysiological changes. However, OA pain is complex and multimodal; its characteristics, including severity, localization and the stimuli that elicit it, can change as the disease progresses and differ greatly among patients. Understanding mechanisms underlying specific pain characteristics may help guide clinicians in choosing appropriate treatments, targeting treatments to those patients most likely to benefit. Associations have been demonstrated between biomarkers and some characteristics of OA pain, and to processes linked to the shift in pain characteristics over the course of OA. This article examines how understanding OA pain characteristics and their relation to the disease process could inform treatment choice when applying well-established treatment guidelines.

An alternative approach for estimating the number needed to treat for survival endpoints

To investigate the issues of the NNT based on the absolute risk reduction (ARR), namely NNT_ARR; and to propose an alternative definition and an estimation procedure based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST), namely NNT_RMST, for RCTs. Three recent clinical trials with survival endpoints, representing different scenarios, were selected to compare the performance of the NNT_ARR and NNT_RMST. For each trial, both versions of NNT were estimated using the reconstructed individual-level data, and the average life gain (ALG) was derived to show the differences between the NNT_ARR and NNT_RMST. Four hypothetical scenarios were constructed to further explore the advantages and disadvantages of each definition of the NNT for survival endpoints. For the illustrative trial examples, the NNT_ARR failed to capture the profile of the treatment effect over time as it is calculated at a specific time point. Sometimes it may even result in misinterpretations of the treatment benefit. In particular, when either the observed event rates are low, the two survival curves cross, or a mixture of survival patterns exist. In contrast, the NNT_RMST based on the average survival (or event-free) time can quantify the treatment effect more accurately and its interpretation is more intuitive and clinically meaningful. The NNT_RMST can be used as an alternative measure for quantifying treatment effect in RCTs, especially so in the case of the ALG, which helps practitioners to better understand the magnitude of the benefit conferred by treatment.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of approved medicines for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Background: Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) currently recommend pirfenidone and nintedanib. However, there is a lack of evidence from head-to-head comparisons.

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to access the efficacy and tolerability of two new treatments for IPF, pirfenidone and nintedanib.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) selection (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase), data extraction, risk of bias analysis, and GRADE assessment were carried out by two authors separately. Direct estimates were calculated using standard pairwise meta-analysis. A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison approach for NMA estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), was used to compare the treatments, calculating odds ratios (OR) and number needed to treat (NNTB) or harm (NNTH).

Results: The NMA on 10 randomized controlled trials showed that each drug had a positive effect on percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC) decline ≥ 10% (pirfenidone OR = 0.54 [95% CI = 0.37–0.80], NNTB = 9 [95% CI = 7–22]; nintedanib OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.41–0.84], NNTB = 9 [95% CI = 6–23]), but no significant differences were noted when comparing pirfenidone and nintedanib with respect to acute exacerbations, mortality, and serious adverse events (FVC decline OR = 0.91 [95% CI = 0.45–2.03]) or dropouts (OR = 0.75 [95% CI = 0.33–1.27]). Nintedanib showed an effect on dropouts, OR = 1.61 (1.13–2.28) and NNTH = 14 (8–61).

Conclusions: Based on RCTs of 12 month duration in patients with IPF, a positive effect on FVC decline was noted for both treatments and on dropouts for nintedanib, but no significant differences were noted between treatments.

Total knee replacement and non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: 2-year outcome from two parallel randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare 2-year outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) followed by non-surgical treatment to that of non-surgical treatment alone and outcomes of the same non-surgical treatment to that of written advice.

DESIGN

In two randomized trials, 200 (mean age 66) adults with moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis (OA), 100 eligible for TKR and 100 not eligible for TKR, were randomized to TKR followed by non-surgical treatment, non-surgical treatment alone, or written advice. Non-surgical treatment consisted of 12 weeks of supervised exercise, education, dietary advice, use of insoles, and pain medication. The primary outcome was the mean score of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, covering pain, symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Patients randomized to TKR had greater improvements than patients randomized to non-surgical treatment alone (difference of 18.3 points (95% CI; 11.3 to 25.3)), who in turn improved more than patients randomized to written advice (difference of 7.0 points (95% CI; 0.4 to 13.5)). Among patients eligible for TKR, 16 (32%) from the non-surgical group underwent TKR during 2 years and among those initially ineligible, seven patients (14%) from the non-surgical group and ten (20%) from the written advice group underwent TKR.

CONCLUSIONS

TKR followed by non-surgical treatment is more effective on pain and function than non-surgical treatment alone, which in turn is more effective than written advice. Two out of three patients with moderate to severe knee OA eligible for TKR delayed surgery for at least 2 years following non-surgical treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT01410409 and NCT01535001.

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.

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.

Sarilumab improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors

Objective

To evaluate effects of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody sarilumab administered with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the TARGET trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-IR).

Methods

546 patients (81.9% female, mean age 52.9 years) were randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks + csDMARDs. PROs included patient global assessment (PtGA); pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36); FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F); Work Productivity Survey-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 24 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures; post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values.

Results

Sarilumab + csDMARDs doses resulted in improvements from baseline at week 12 vs placebo + csDMARDs in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F that were maintained at week 24. Sarilumab improved morning stiffness and reduced the impact of RA on work, family, social/leisure activities participation (WPS-RA) and on patients' lives (RAID). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID and ≥ normative scores were greater with sarilumab than placebo.

Conclusions

In patients with TNF-IR RA, 150 and 200 mg sarilumab + csDMARDs resulted in clinically meaningful patient-reported benefits on pain, fatigue, function, participation and health status at 12 and 24 weeks that exceeded placebo + csDMARDs, and were consistent with the clinical profile previously reported.

Trial registration number

NCT01709578; Results.

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.

Sarilumab plus methotrexate improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to methotrexate: results of a phase III trial

Background

Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-6 receptor complex. In the MOBILITY phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), sarilumab + methotrexate (MTX) treatment resulted in clinical improvements at 24 weeks that were maintained at 52 weeks in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who have inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). These analyses indicate the effects of sarilumab + MTX versus placebo on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this RCT.

Methods

Patients (n = 1197) were randomized to receive placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously + MTX every 2 weeks for 52 weeks; after 16 weeks, patients without ≥20 % improvement from baseline in swollen or tender joint counts on two consecutive assessments were offered open-label treatment. PROs included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), and functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F). Changes from baseline at weeks 24 and 52 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements equal to or greater than minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and normative values in the FACIT-F and SF-36. Pearson correlation between observed PRO scores and clinical measures of disease activity was tested at week 24.

Results

Both doses of sarilumab + MTX vs placebo + MTX resulted in improvement from baseline by week 24 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F scores (p < 0.0001) that was clinically meaningful, and persisted until week 52. In post hoc analyses, the percentages of patients with improvement equal to or greater than the MCID across all PROs were greater with sarilumab than placebo (p < 0.05), with differences ranging from 11.6 to 26.2 %, as were those reporting equal to or greater than normative scores.

Conclusions

In this RCT in patients with MTX-IR RA, sarilumab + MTX resulted in sustained improvement in PROs that were clinically meaningful, greater than placebo + MTX, and complement the previously reported clinical efficacy and safety of sarilumab.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01061736. February 2, 2010

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

The efficacy of 12 weeks non-surgical treatment for patients not eligible for total knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of a 12-week non-surgical treatment program with usual care in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) not eligible for total knee replacement (TKR).

METHOD

This two-arm parallel group assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 100 adults from secondary care with knee OA, confirmed by radiography (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥1), but not eligible for a TKR. The 12-week non-surgical treatment program consisted of individualized progressed neuromuscular exercise, patient education, insoles, dietary advice and prescription of pain medication if indicated, while usual care comprised two leaflets with information and advice on knee OA and recommended treatments. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 12 months in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)4 defined as the average score for the KOOS subscales of pain, symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

91% of the patients completed the 12 months follow-up on the primary outcome. Compared with usual care, patients undergoing the treatment program improved more in KOOS4 (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) of 9.6 (4.4-14.8)) with no serious treatment-related adverse events (AE). The number needed to treat (NNT), defined as the number of patients needed to treat for one person to improve 15% was 7.2. Secondary outcomes supported the primary findings.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mostly moderate to severe knee OA not eligible for TKR, a 12-week individualized, non-surgical treatment program is more efficacious at 12 months compared with usual care and has few treatment-related AE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01535001).

Immediate efficacy of neuromuscular exercise in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Knowledge about the effects of exercise in severe and endstage osteoarthritis (OA) is limited. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of a neuromuscular exercise program in patients with clinically severe hip or knee OA.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled assessor-blinded trial. Patients received an educational package (care-as-usual) only, or care-as-usual plus an 8-week neuromuscular exercise intervention (NEMEX-TJR). NEMEX-TJR was supervised by a physiotherapist, twice weekly for 1 h. The primary outcome was Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale from the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire. The secondary outcomes were the HOOS/KOOS subscales Pain, Symptoms, Sport and Recreation, and Joint-related Quality of Life. Exploratory outcomes were functional performance measures and lower limb muscle power.

RESULTS

Included were 165 patients, 56% female, average age 67 years (SD ± 8), and a body mass index of 30 (SD ± 5), who were scheduled for primary hip or knee replacement. The postintervention difference between mean changes in ADL was 7.2 points (95% CI 3.5 to 10.9, p = 0.0002) in favor of NEMEX-TJR compared with control. Second, there were statistically significant differences between groups in favor of NEMEX-TJR on all self-reported outcomes and most functional performance tests (walk, chair stands, and 1-leg knee bends). Stratified analyses according to joint revealed moderate effect size for ADL for hip patients (0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00). Corresponding effect size for knee patients was small (0.23 95% CI -0.14 to 0.60).

CONCLUSION

Feasibility of neuromuscular exercise was confirmed in patients about to have total joint replacement. Self-reported activities of daily living and objective performance were improved and pain reduced immediately following 8 weeks of neuromuscular exercise. While the effects were moderate in hip OA, they were only small in knee OA. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01003756.

Education, self-management, and upper extremity exercise training in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief supervised education, self-management, and global upper extremity exercise training program, supplementing a home exercise regimen, for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; the Education, Self-Management, and Upper Extremity Exercise Training in People with Rheumatoid Arthritis [EXTRA] program).

METHODS

Adults with RA of ≤5 years' duration were randomized to receive either usual care or the EXTRA program comprising 4 (1-hour) group education, self-management, and global upper extremity exercise training sessions supplementing the first 2 weeks of a 12-week individualized, functional home exercise regimen in addition to usual care. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks (primary end point), and 36 weeks and included the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (primary outcome measure), the Grip Ability Test, handgrip strength (N), the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (pain, function, and symptoms subscales), and the 28-joint Disease Activity Score.

RESULTS

One hundred eight participants (26 men, mean ± SD age 55 ± 15 years, mean ± SD disease duration 20 ± 19 months) were randomized to receive either usual care (n = 56) or the EXTRA program (n = 52). At 12 weeks, there was a significant between-group difference in the mean change in disability (-6.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -12.6, -1.0]; P = 0.022), function (-3.0 [95% CI -5.0, -0.5]; P = 0.011), nondominant handgrip strength (31.3N [95% CI 9.8, 52.8]; P = 0.009), self-efficacy (10.5 [95% CI 1.6, 19.5]; P = 0.021 for pain and 9.3 [95% CI 0.5, 18.2]; P = 0.039 for symptoms), and disease activity (-0.7 [95% CI -1.4, 0.0]; P = 0.047), all favoring the EXTRA program.

CONCLUSION

The EXTRA program improves upper extremity disability, function, handgrip strength, and self-efficacy in people with RA, with no adverse effects on disease activity.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Risk of tuberculosis with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy: substantially higher number of patients at risk in Asia

AIM

To assess the potential risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) agents in Asia.

METHODS

Absolute risk increase (ARI) of TB was estimated for three widely used anti-TNF-α therapies using published standardized incidence ratios (SIR) from the French Research Axed on Tolerance of bIOtherapies registry and incidence (absolute risk [AR]) of TB in Asia. Assuming an association of increased TB risk with anti-TNF-α therapy and country TB AR (incidence), the ARI of TB by country was calculated by multiplying the SIR of the anti-TNF-α therapy by the country's TB AR. The numbers needed to harm (NNH) for each anti-TNF-α agent and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to reduce one TB event using etanercept therapy instead of adalimumab or infliximab were also calculated for each country.

RESULTS

The ARI of TB with anti-TNF-α therapies in Asian countries is substantially higher than Western Europe and North America and the difference between etanercept versus the monoclonal antibodies becomes more evident. The NNH for Asian countries ranged from 8 to 163 for adalimumab, 126 to 2646 for etanercept and 12 to 256 for infliximab. The NNT to reduce one TB event using etanercept instead of adalimumab therapy ranged from 8 to 173, and using etanercept instead of infliximab therapy the NNT ranged from 13 to 283.

CONCLUSION

Higher numbers of patients are at risk of developing TB with anti-TNF-α therapy in Asia compared with Western Europe and North America. The relative lower risk of TB with etanercept may be particularly relevant for Asia, an endemic area for TB.

Towards a mechanism-based approach to pain management in osteoarthritis

Pain is the defining symptom of osteoarthritis (OA), yet available treatment options, of which NSAIDs are the most common, provide inadequate pain relief and are associated with serious health risks when used long term. Chronic pain pathways are subject to complex levels of control and modulation, both in the periphery and in the central nervous system. Ongoing clinical and basic research is uncovering how these pathways operate in OA. Indeed, clinical investigation into the types of pain associated with progressive OA, the presence of central sensitization, the correlation with structural changes in the joint, and the efficacy of novel analgesics affords new insights into the pathophysiology of OA pain. Moreover, studies in disease-specific animal models enable the unravelling of the cellular and molecular pathways involved. We expect that increased understanding of the mechanisms by which chronic OA-associated pain is generated and maintained will offer opportunities for targeting and improving the safety of analgesia. In addition, using clinical and genetic approaches, it might become possible to identify subsets of patients with pain of different pathophysiology, thus enabling a tailored approach to pain management.

A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment

BACKGROUND

Several quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment of health care interventions exist but it is unclear how the approaches differ. Our aim was to review existing quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment and to develop an organizing framework that clarifies differences and aids selection of quantitative approaches for a particular benefit-harm assessment.

METHODS

We performed a review of the literature to identify quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. Our team, consisting of clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians, discussed the approaches and identified their key characteristics. We developed a framework that helps investigators select quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment that are appropriate for a particular decisionmaking context.

RESULTS

Our framework for selecting quantitative approaches requires a concise definition of the treatment comparison and population of interest, identification of key benefit and harm outcomes, and determination of the need for a measure that puts all outcomes on a single scale (which we call a benefit and harm comparison metric). We identified 16 quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. These approaches can be categorized into those that consider single or multiple key benefit and harm outcomes, and those that use a benefit-harm comparison metric or not. Most approaches use aggregate data and can be used in the context of single studies or systematic reviews. Although the majority of approaches provides a benefit and harm comparison metric, only four approaches provide measures of uncertainty around the benefit and harm comparison metric (such as a 95 percent confidence interval). None of the approaches considers the actual joint distribution of benefit and harm outcomes, but one approach considers competing risks when calculating profile-specific event rates. Nine approaches explicitly allow incorporating patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

The choice of quantitative approaches depends on the specific question and goal of the benefit-harm assessment as well as on the nature and availability of data. In some situations, investigators may identify only one appropriate approach. In situations where the question and available data justify more than one approach, investigators may want to use multiple approaches and compare the consistency of results. When more evidence on relative advantages of approaches accumulates from such comparisons, it will be possible to make more specific recommendations on the choice of approaches.

A systematic review of duloxetine for osteoarthritic pain: what is the number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed?

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of duloxetine for the treatment of osteoarthritic pain.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review of all published double-blind randomized controlled trials of duloxetine for osteoarthritic pain, supplemented by information in clinical trial registries, product labeling, and regulatory documents.

STUDY SELECTION

All available reports of studies were identified.

DATA EXTRACTION

Descriptions of the principal results and calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and other efficacy outcomes and number needed to harm (NNH) for relevant dichotomous adverse outcomes were extracted. Likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) was subsequently calculated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

US Food and Drug Administration approval for duloxetine for chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) was based on 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of 13 weeks' duration testing duloxetine 60 to 120 mg/d versus placebo. When study results were pooled, the proportion of patients experiencing clinically meaningful outcomes at study endpoint, such as a ≥ 30% or ≥ 50% reduction in pain scores, improvement in physical functioning, or subjective improvement, ranged from 42% to 67% for duloxetine, compared with 26% to 50% for placebo, depending on the specific measure; the NNT for these measures for duloxetine versus placebo was 7. The most commonly observed adverse reactions in duloxetine-treated patients were nausea (8.4% vs 2.0% for duloxetine and placebo, respectively), fatigue (6.7% vs 0.8%, respectively), and constipation (6.3% vs 0.8%, respectively), yielding NNH values of 16, 17, and 19, respectively. The LHH was consistently > 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine appears efficacious and tolerable for the treatment of chronic pain associated with OA. The NNT and NNH can be used to quantify efficacy and tolerability outcomes and help place duloxetine into clinical perspective. Likelihood to be helped or harmed can illustrate to the clinician and patient the trade-offs between obtaining potential benefits versus harms. Head-to-head comparisons of duloxetine with other interventions for OA, as well as controlled trials of duloxetine in combination with other therapies, would be desirable.

Long-term outcomes and costs of an integrated rehabilitation program for chronic knee pain: a pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic joint pain is a major cause of pain and disability. Exercise and self-management have short-term benefits, but few studies follow participants for more than 6 months. We investigated the long-term (up to 30 months) clinical and cost effectiveness of a rehabilitation program combining self-management and exercise: Enabling Self-Management and Coping of Arthritic Knee Pain Through Exercise (ESCAPE-knee pain).

METHODS

In this pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled trial, 418 people with chronic knee pain (recruited from 54 primary care surgeries) were randomized to usual care (pragmatic control) or the ESCAPE-knee pain program. The primary outcome was physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] function), with a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function defined as a ≥15% change from baseline. Secondary outcomes included pain, psychosocial and physiologic variables, costs, and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

Compared to usual care, ESCAPE-knee pain participants had large initial improvements in function (mean difference in WOMAC function -5.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -7.8, -3.2). These improvements declined over time, but 30 months after completing the program, ESCAPE-knee pain participants still had better physical function (difference in WOMAC function -2.8; 95% CI -5.3, -0.2); lower community-based health care costs (£-47; 95% CI £-94, £-7), medication costs (£-16; 95% CI £-29, £-3), and total health and social care costs (£-1,118; 95% CI £-2,566, £-221); and a high probability (80-100%) of being cost effective.

CONCLUSION

Clinical and cost benefits of ESCAPE-knee pain were still evident 30 months after completing the program. ESCAPE-knee pain is a more effective and efficient model of care that could substantially improve the health, well-being, and independence of many people, while reducing health care costs.

Duloxetine added to oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for treatment of knee pain due to osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of duloxetine when added to oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee with pain of moderate or greater severity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 10-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose (duloxetine 60/120 mg/day), placebo-controlled trial that enrolled adult outpatients who had persistent moderate pain (≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale) due to OA of the knee, despite, per protocol, having received optimized oral NSAID therapy (specific drug, dose, and frequency at investigator discretion).

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01018680.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients entered daily pain ratings in a telephone-based diary. The primary efficacy outcome was the weekly mean of the daily average pain rating at week 8. Safety outcomes were assessed during the entire 10-week study.

RESULTS

A total of 524 patients randomly received duloxetine 60/120 mg/day (N = 264) or placebo (N = 260). In total, 74% of the patients completed the study. Mean age was 61 years (SD 9.2), 57% were female, and 81% were white. Duloxetine-treated patients had significantly greater pain reduction at week 8 (p < 0.001) than placebo-treated patients. In addition, relative to placebo at week 8, duloxetine-treated patients had significant improvements in physical function as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (p < 0.001), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (p < 0.001). Compared to placebo, significantly more nausea, dry mouth, constipation, fatigue and decreased appetite were reported by patients taking duloxetine (each p < 0.05). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred more commonly in the duloxetine group than the placebo group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine added to oral NSAID therapy provided additional significant pain reduction, improved function, and patient-rated impression of improvement. Adverse events were consistent with those seen in previous duloxetine trials. The short duration of the study may not reflect the longer term efficacy and safety of NSAID/duloxetine cotherapy.

Clinically Relevant Outcomes Based on Analysis of Pooled Data from 2 Trials of Duloxetine in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective.

To determine response with duloxetine versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responder index and other clinically relevant outcomes including minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for pain and function.

Methods.

Data were pooled from two 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing duloxetine 60 to 120 mg/day with placebo in patients with symptomatic OA of the knee. Treatment response was determined according to the OMERACT-OARSI responder index, ≥ 30% pain reduction, ≥ 50% pain reduction, and MCII and PASS for pain and function. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00433290 and NCT00408421)

Results.

Duloxetine-treated patients were 33% more likely to experience an OMERACT-OARSI response than placebo-treated patients [p < 0.001, number needed to treat (NNT) = 6]. A significantly greater percentage of duloxetine-treated patients, compared with placebo-treated patients, reported ≥ 30% improvement in pain from baseline to endpoint (p < 0.001, NNT = 5) and ≥ 50% improvement in pain relative to baseline (p < 0.001, NNT = 7). The duloxetine-treated patients were also more likely to fulfill MCII criteria for pain (p < 0.001, NNT = 6) and function (p < 0.001, NNT = 7), and to achieve PASS for pain (p < 0.001, NNT = 6) and function (p = 0.009, NNT = 9). More duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (p = 0.003, number needed to harm = 8).

Conclusion.

Significantly more patients receiving duloxetine than placebo achieved an OMERACT-OARSI response, improvements in pain and function exceeding the level accepted as MCII, and reached PASS. Results support the clinical relevance of outcomes of prior duloxetine studies in symptomatic OA of the knee.

Etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept (ETN) is the first anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Over the last 8 years, several clinical trials have shown its efficacy and safety in established and early RA, as well as a monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate. ETN not only reduces the signs and symptoms of RA, but also retards the progression of radiographic damage and improves the quality of life and function of patients. Its safety profile has been predictable since the first clinical trials with no new major safety concerns. Beyond its efficacy in RA, ETN is also indicated for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. This current report reviews the evidence and the data in RA and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Remission of major depressive disorder without adverse events: a comparison of escitalopram versus serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

An antidepressant's tolerability, generally captured as the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), is often as important as its efficacy in determining treatment success. This study used a composite outcome - remission of major depressive disorder (MDD) without AEs - to compare the benefit-risk profiles of escitalopram versus the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (XR).

METHODS

Pooled data from three randomized, double-blind, multicenter trials were analyzed, in which patients with MDD were treated for 8 weeks with either escitalopram (n = 462) or an SNRI (n = 467).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00108979; NCT00384436.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The composite outcome was defined as remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≤10) and concurrent absence of an AE. The proportions of remitted patients free of (1) any AEs, (2) moderate-to-severe AEs, and (3) study drug-related AEs were compared between treatment groups at each study visit and longitudinally across study visits common to all trials during the first 8 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

At endpoint (week 8), escitalopram-treated patients were more likely than SNRI-treated patients to experience remission free of any AEs (28.4 vs. 21.6%; p = 0.0179) and remission free of study drug-related AEs (45.2 vs. 36.8%; p = 0.0092). Compared to SNRI-treated patients, escitalopram-treated patients had 38% greater odds of remission free of any AEs, 28% greater odds of remission free of moderate-to-severe AEs, and 34% greater odds of remission free of study drug-related AEs (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of adult MDD patients with escitalopram was significantly more likely to result in remission without concurrent AEs compared to treatment with current SNRIs. Study limitations include focus on only the initial 8 weeks of treatment and exclusion of trials for which individual patient data were not obtained.

Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate provides broad relief from the burden of rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the RAPID 2 trial

Objective

To assess the impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to interpret these results using number needed to treat (NNT), and associations between PRO responses and longer term outcomes.

Methods

A total of 619 patients with active RA were randomised to CZP 200 or 400 mg, or placebo plus methotrexate (MTX). PROs assessed included pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physical function, fatigue and health-related quality of life. Treatment impact on PROs, NNT to achieve simultaneous improvements in multiple PROs and correlations between PROs were calculated. Times to onset of improvements greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in pain as a determinant of clinical outcomes at week 24 were compared between week 6 and 12 responders, and in patients with improvements in pain ≥MCID at week 12 (week 12 responders/non-responders).

Results

CZP 200 and 400 mg plus MTX were associated with rapid, clinically meaningful improvements in all PROs. The NNT for subjects to report changes ≥MCID in up to five PROs was two to three, and five for all six PROs (pain, PtGA, physical function, fatigue and short-form 36-item Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores). More patients with improvements ≥MCID in pain at week 6 than those at week 12 had lower disease activity at week 24. Week 12 pain responders had better clinical outcomes at week 24 than non-responders.

Conclusions

The data demonstrate that CZP provides broad relief from the burden of RA.

Trial registration number

NCT00160602.

The number needed to treat for second-generation biologics when treating established rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic quantitative review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) of the second-generation biologics abatacept, certolizumab, golimumab, rituximab, and tocilizumab in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking concomitant methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials was conducted up to 1 November 2009. We selected any published randomized, double-blind, MTX-controlled study including RA patients with a mean disease duration of at least 5 years before entering a pivotal trial on second-generation biological therapy. Studies eligible for inclusion involved patients, who had previously shown inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. Pre-specified binary outcomes were extracted with a preference for 1-year data (6-month data were used if no data were available for 1 year). Two reviewers independently extracted the data necessary to estimate the absolute measures in a non-responder intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials, one for each of the drugs, were selected and data extracted according to published data at endpoint for American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50)-responding patients, and withdrawals due to adverse events. NNT ranged from four to six treated patients to achieve one ACR50 response, while withdrawals due to adverse events were few and non-significant compared to the placebo group, except for rituximab administered as 1000 mg.

CONCLUSION

Comparable efficacy was shown by the five biological agents studied, with few adverse events. However, for rituximab, tocilizumab, and golimumab, only 6-month data were available, hampering the external validity with regard to long-term efficacy and tolerability. A low dose (500 mg) of rituximab may be as effective as the recommended dose of 1000 mg.

Two-year clinical and radiographic results with combination etanercept-methotrexate therapy versus monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a two-year, double-blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how continuation of and alterations to initial year 1 combination etanercept-methotrexate (MTX) therapy and MTX monotherapy regimens affect long-term remission and radiographic progression in early, active rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Subjects were randomized at baseline for the entire 2-year period; those who completed 1 year of treatment with combination or MTX monotherapy entered year 2. The original combination group either continued combination therapy (the EM/EM group; n = 111) or received etanercept monotherapy (the EM/E group; n = 111) in year 2; the original MTX monotherapy group either received combination therapy (the M/EM group; n = 90) or continued monotherapy (the M/M group; n = 99) in year 2. Efficacy end points included remission (a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] <2.6) and radiographic nonprogression (change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score < or = 0.5) at year 2. A last observation carried forward analysis from the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 398) and a post hoc nonresponder imputation (NRI) analysis (n = 528) were performed for remission.

RESULTS

At year 2, DAS28 remission was achieved by 62/108, 54/108, 51/88, and 33/94 subjects in the EM/EM, EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for the EM/EM and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). This effect was corroborated by a more conservative post hoc 2-year NRI analysis, with remission observed in 59/131, 50/134, 48/133, and 29/130 of the same respective groups (P < 0.05 for each of the EM/EM, EM/E, and M/EM groups versus the M/M group). The proportions of subjects achieving radiographic nonprogression (n = 360) were 89/99, 74/99, 59/79, and 56/83 in the EM/EM (P < 0.01 versus each of the other groups), EM/E, M/EM, and M/M groups, respectively. No new safety signals or between-group differences in serious adverse events were seen.

CONCLUSION

Early sustained combination etanercept-MTX therapy was consistently superior to MTX monotherapy. Combination therapy resulted in important clinical and radiographic benefits over 2 study years, without significant additional safety risk.

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the benefits and safety of 6 biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab and rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

In this network meta-analysis, we included all completed and updated Cochrane reviews on biologics for rheumatoid arthritis. We included data from all placebo-controlled trials that used standard dosing regimens. The major outcomes were benefit (defined as a 50% improvement in patient- and physician-reported criteria of the American College of Rheumatology [ACR50]) and safety (determined by the number of withdrawals related to adverse events). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to carry out an indirect comparison of the treatment effects between biologics.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, biologics were associated with a clinically important higher ACR50 rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-4.29) and a number needed to treat for benefit of 4 (95% CI 4-6). However, biologics were associated with more withdrawals related to adverse events (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.71), with a number needed to treat for harm of 52 (95% CI 29-152). Anakinra was less effective than all of the other biologics, although this difference was statistically significant only for the comparison with adalimumab (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.99) and etanercept (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81). Adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab were more likely than etanercept to lead to withdrawals related to adverse events (adalimumab OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.18-3.04; anakinra OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.29; and infliximab OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43-5.26).

INTERPRETATION

Given the limitations of indirect comparisons, anakinra was less effective than adalimumab and etanercept, and etanercept was safer than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. This summary of the evidence will help physicians and patients to make evidence-based choices about biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

The biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA.

METHODS

This 'Overview of Reviews' was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study-level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial.

MAIN RESULTS

From the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab.The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003).In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted with caution. These findings can inform physicians and patients regarding their choice of biologic for treatment of RA.

How to perform a critical analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Given the large amount of medical literature of varying methodological quality, care must be taken when translating the results of randomised controlled trials into clinical practice. To assist in this translation process, we provide a method that involves answering three main questions: 'Can I trust the results?' 'How do I understand the results?' and 'To whom do the results apply?' To answer the first question, we describe important items that help in judging the reliability of the findings. For the second question, we address the clinical and statistical significance of results by looking at the size and precision of the effect. Finally, we raise the issue of external validity and of reporting adverse effects to determine which patients may best benefit from the new intervention.

UK cost-consequence analysis of aripiprazole in schizophrenia: diabetes and coronary heart disease risk projections (STAR study)

Patients with schizophrenia experience elevated rates of morbidity and mortality, largely due to an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There is increasing concern that some atypical antipsychotic therapies are associated with adverse metabolic symptoms, such as weight gain, dyslipidaemia and glucose dysregulation. These metabolic symptoms may further increase the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes in this population and, subsequently, the cost of treating these patients' physical health. The STAR study showed that the metabolic side effects of aripiprazole treatment are less than that experienced by those receiving standard-of-care (SOC). In a follow-up study the projected risks for diabetes or CHD, calculated using the Stern and Framingham models, were lower in the aripiprazole treatment group. Assuming the risk of diabetes onset/CHD events remained linear over 10 years, these risks were used to estimate the difference in direct and indirect cost consequences of diabetes and CHD in schizophrenia patients treated with aripiprazole or SOC over a 10-year period. Diabetes costs were estimated from the UKPDS and UK T(2)ARDIS studies, respectively, and CHD costs were estimated using prevalence data from the Health Survey of England and the published literature. All costs were inflated to 2007 costs using the NHS pay and prices index. The number of avoided diabetes cases (23.4 cases per 1,000 treated patients) in patients treated with aripiprazole compared with SOC was associated with estimated total (direct and indirect) cost savings of 37,261,293 pounds over 10 years for the UK population. Similarly, the number of avoided CHD events (3.7 events per 1,000 treated patients) was associated with estimated total cost savings of 7,506,770 pounds over 10 years. Compared with SOC, aripiprazole treatment may provide reductions in the health and economic burden to schizophrenia patients and health care services in the UK as a result of its favourable metabolic profile.

Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of reviews about etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX), two biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

STUDY DESIGN

A comprehensive, systematic review, including searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other electronic databases and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature. Two raters independently examined each article and identified systematic reviews as those including either a description of: (1) sources for identification and data retrieval; or (2) search strategy. They applied the quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) instrument to systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 3,620 total citations, 281 were identified as reviews. Of these, 26 (9%) qualified as systematic rather than narrative. Overall, few reviews described selection of sources, critical appraisal, or quantitative summary or synthesis. Systematic reviews most often failed to explain validity assessment. Several articles did not disclose authors' participation in industry-funded clinical trials. Most reviews published in high impact factor and rheumatology journals did not meet many quality standards. Significant associations existed between review type (narrative vs. systematic) and reported funding (P=0.05), conflicts of interest (P=0.005), and country of publication (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of the published reviews were narrative and did not report methods and conflicts of interest in sufficient detail, raising concerns about selection and reporting bias.

Does the hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) reduce pain in osteoarthritis patients?--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--of a hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) preparation for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), in order to estimate the empirical efficacy as a pain reducing compound.

METHOD

RCTs from systematic searches were included if they explicitly stated that OA patients were randomized to either rosehip or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in pain calculated as effect size (ES), defined as the standardized mean difference (SMD). As secondary analysis the number of responders to therapy was analyzed as Odds Ratios (OR), and expressed as the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) methods were applied for the meta-analyses using mixed effects models.

RESULTS

The three studies (287 patients and a median trial-duration of 3 months)--all supported by the manufacturer (Hyben-Vital International)--showed a reduction in pain scores by rosehip powder (145 patients) compared to placebo (142 patients): ES of 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.60], P=0.002. Test for homogeneity seemed to support that the efficacy was consistent across trials (I(2)=0%). Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the three studies were measuring the same overall effect. It seemed twice as likely that a patient allocated to rosehip powder would respond to therapy, compared to placebo (OR=2.19; P=0.0009); corresponding to a NNT of six (95% CI: 4-13) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although based on a sparse amount of data, the results of the present meta-analysis indicate that rosehip powder does reduce pain; accordingly it may be of interest as a nutraceutical, although its efficacy and safety need evaluation and independent replication in a future large-scale/long-term trial.

Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

To analyse available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFalpha drugs (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab) for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched systematically for randomised controlled clinical trials on treatment of RA with anti-TNFalpha drugs, followed by a systematic review with metaanalysis. Trials were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) efficacy response criteria were used. Safety parameters provided by the trials were also assessed. Positive and undesired effects were estimated using combined relative risks (RR), number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane's Q and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (7087 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The combined RR to achieve a therapeutic response to treatment with recommended doses of any anti-TNFalpha drug was 1.81 (95% CI 1.43-2.29) with a NNT of 5 (5-6) for ACR20. NNT for ACR50 [5 (5-6)] and ACR70 [7 (7-9)] were similar. Overall therapeutic effects were also similar regardless of the specific anti-TNFalpha drug used and when higher than recommended doses were administered. However, lower than recommended doses elicited low ACR70 responses (NNT 15). Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus methotrexate (MTX) with MTX alone in patients with insufficient prior responses to MTX showed NNT values of 3 for ACR20, 4 for ACR50 and 8 for ACR70. Comparison of anti-TNFalpha drugs with placebo showed a similar pattern. Comparisons of anti-TNFalpha drugs plus MTX with MTX alone in patients with no previous resistance to MTX showed somewhat lower effects. Etanercept and adalimumab administered as monotherapy showed effects similar to those of MTX. Side effects were more common among patients receiving anti-TNFalpha drugs than controls (overall combined NNH 27). Patients receiving infliximab were more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 24) and to suffer severe side effects (NNH 31), infections (NNH 10) and infusion reactions (NNH 9). Patients receiving adalimumab were also more likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH 47) and to suffer injection site reactions (NNH 22). Patients receiving etanercept were less likely to drop out because of side effects (NNH for control versus etanercept 26) but more likely to experience injection site reactions (NNH 5).

CONCLUSION

Anti-TNFalpha drugs are effective in RA patients, with apparently similar results irrespective of the drug administered. Doses other than those recommended are also beneficial. The main factor influencing therapeutic efficacy is the prior response to DMARD treatment. The effect of treatment with etanercept or adalimumab does not differ from that obtained with MTX. The published safety profile for etanercept is superior but the fact that no patients are treated with higher than recommended doses requires explanation.

Symptomatic efficacy of avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (ASU) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of preparations with avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (ASUs) in osteoarthritis (OA) patients using meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHOD

RCTs from systematic searches were included if they explicitly stated that hip and/or knee OA patients were randomized to either ASU or placebo. The co-primary outcome was reduction in pain and Lequesne index, leading to effect size (ES), calculated as the standardized mean difference. As secondary analysis, the number of responders to therapy was analyzed as odds ratios (ORs). Restricted maximum likelihood methods were applied for the meta-analyses, using mixed effects models.

RESULTS

Four trials--all supported by the manufacturer--were included, with 664 OA patients with either hip (41.4%) or knee (58.6%) OA allocated to either 300 mg ASU (336) or placebo (328). Average trial duration was 6 months (range: 3-12 months). Though based on heterogeneous results, the combined pain reduction favored ASU (I(2) = 83.5%, ES = 0.39 [95% confidence intervals: 0.01-0.76], P=0.04). Applying the Lequesne index also favored ASU (I(2) = 61.0%, ES = 0.45 [0.21-0.70], P = 0.0003). Secondarily, the number of responders following ASU compared to placebo (OR = 2.19, P = 0.007) corresponded to a number needed to treat of six (4-21) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, patients may be recommended to give ASU a chance for e.g., 3 months. Meta-analysis data support better chances of success in patients with knee OA than in those with hip OA.

The number needed to treat for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab based on ACR50 response in three randomized controlled trials on established rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking concomitant methotrexate (MTX) by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) using three different methods.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted from inception to 30 June 2006. Two pairs of investigators, a Danish and a Swedish pair, independently conducted a structured literature review. The reviewers selected any published randomized, double-blind, MTX controlled study of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, presenting the American College of Rheumatology 50% response (ACR50) after 12 months in RA patients with a mean disease duration of at least 5 years. The two review groups independently extracted the estimates necessary to calculate the NNT.

RESULTS

The reviewers consistently selected the same three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), one for each of the drugs, and extracted equal data for the number of patients completing the 12-month intervention, and the corresponding number of ACR50 responding patients after therapy. Some baseline differences were noted: patients in the etanercept trial had a shorter disease duration and did not receive MTX prior to inclusion; patients in the adalimumab study had lower Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores. The calculated NNTs varied slightly depending on the method used. The fully adjusted NNTs (95% confidence intervals) for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab standard dosage and infliximab double dosage were 4 (3-6), 4 (3-6), 8 (4-66), and 4 (3-11) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates equal efficacy of the three anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapies.

Clinical effectiveness of a rehabilitation program integrating exercise, self-management, and active coping strategies for chronic knee pain: a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic knee pain is a major cause of disability and health care expenditure, but there are concerns about efficacy, cost, and side effects associated with usual primary care. Conservative rehabilitation may offer a safe, effective, affordable alternative. We compared the effectiveness of a rehabilitation program integrating exercise, self-management, and active coping strategies (Enabling Self-management and Coping with Arthritic Knee Pain through Exercise [ESCAPE-knee pain]) with usual primary care in improving functioning in persons with chronic knee pain.

METHODS

We conducted a single-blind, pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants age >/=50 years, reporting knee pain for >6 months, were recruited from 54 inner-city primary care practices. Primary care practices were randomized to continued usual primary care (i.e., whatever intervention a participant's primary care physician deemed appropriate), usual primary care plus the rehabilitation program delivered to individual participants, or usual primary care plus the rehabilitation program delivered to groups of 8 participants. The primary outcome was self-reported functioning (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical functioning [WOMAC-func]) 6 months after completing rehabilitation.

RESULTS

A total of 418 participants were recruited; 76 (18%) withdrew, only 5 (1%) due to adverse events. Rehabilitated participants had better functioning than participants continuing usual primary care (-3.33 difference in WOMAC-func score; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -5.88, -0.78; P = 0.01). Improvements were similar whether participants received individual rehabilitation (-3.53; 95% CI -6.52, -0.55) or group rehabilitation (-3.16; 95% CI -6.55, -0.12).

CONCLUSION

ESCAPE-knee pain provides a safe, relatively brief intervention for chronic knee pain that is equally effective whether delivered to individuals or groups of participants.

Short-term treatment with topical diclofenac epolamine plaster in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: pooled analysis of two randomised clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Data from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were considered in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of a bio-adhesive plaster for topical administration containing diclofenac epolamine (DHEP) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Patients with radiologically confirmed symptomatic knee OA were included. The 14-day treatment consisted of two daily applications of either DHEP or placebo plaster. The algofunctional Lequesne index and pain intensity, measured by means of the Huskisson's visual analogue scale (VAS), were considered as main efficacy parameters. The main analysis of the pooled data was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Of the 258 patients included, 235 completed the study. At the end of the study, the mean decrease in the Lequesne index was 35% in the DHEP group and 15% in the placebo group (p < 0.0001). The mean decrease in pain intensity was 59.5% in the DHEP group and 29.9% in the placebo group. No interaction resulted between treatment and study effects (p > or = 0.2 whatever the test). The non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment effect resulted in a reduction of 21.9% for the Lequesne index and of 30.0% in pain intensity. The number needed to treat (NNT) for at least a 50% reduction of pain was 3.0 and the effect size for pain was 0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical application of DHEP plaster was shown to be an efficacious and safe short-term treatment for symptomatic knee OA, reducing pain and increasing physical function and may be similar in efficacy to oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (as indicated by relative benefit data and NNT value).

The use of topical diclofenac for pain in osteoarthritis of the knee: a review

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common complaint that affects millions of people worldwide. As there is no cure for OA, drug treatment is the main form of management. This can be achieved through the use of analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs such as the NSAID diclofenac sodium. The chronic use of diclofenac sodium can lead to adverse gastrointestinal problems. The use of a topical formulation of diclofenac sodium aims to reduce this problem. Evidence from four randomized controlled trails of the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac sodium as a method of pain relief for the treatment of OA of the knee is presented and discussed. Findings imply that topical diclofenac sodium is an efficacious and safe method of pain control in patients with OA of the knee.

Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with a topical diclofenac solution: a randomised controlled, 6-week trial [ISRCTN53366886]

BACKGROUND

Topical NSAIDs have been proven to relieve the symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA) in short-term studies (2 weeks). To justify its chronic use, efficacy of a topical NSAID over a longer term of study should be demonstrated. The efficacy and safety of a topical diclofenac solution over a 6-week treatment course in symptomatic primary OA of the knee was investigated.

METHODS

216 men and women, age 40-85 years, with radiologically confirmed primary OA of the knee and a flare of pain at baseline following discontinuation of prior therapy were enrolled into this double-blind study. Participants applied either a topical diclofenac solution (Pennsaid) or vehicle control solution (carrier with no diclofenac); 40 drops 4 times daily directly to the painful knee(s), without massage, for 6 weeks. Pre-planned primary efficacy outcome measures included the core continuous variables pain relief and improved physical function measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.1 OA Index, and improved patient global assessment (PGA). Secondary efficacy measure was reduced stiffness. Safety assessments included adverse events and vital signs.

RESULTS

The topical diclofenac group had a significantly greater mean change in score (final minus baseline) compared to the vehicle control group for pain (-5.2 vs. -3.3, p = 0.003), physical function (-13.4 vs. -6.9, p = 0.001), PGA (-1.3 vs. -0.7, p = 0.0001) and stiffness (-1.8 vs. -0.9, p = 0.002). The mean difference between treatment arms (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 1.9 (0.7 to 3.2), 6.5 (2.5 to 10.5), 0.6 (0.2 to 0.9), and 0.9 (0.3 to 1.4), respectively. Safety analyses showed that topical diclofenac caused skin irritation, mostly minor local skin dryness, in 42/107 (39%), leading to discontinuation of treatment in 5/107 (5%) participants.

CONCLUSION

This topical diclofenac solution demonstrated relief at 6 weeks of the symptoms of primary osteoarthritis of the knee.

Weight loss: the treatment of choice for knee osteoarthritis? A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to assess the effect of rapid diet-induced weight loss on the function of obese, knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients.

METHODS

Eighty patients with knee OA, 89% women (n=71), were recruited. Mean (SD) body-mass index (BMI) was 35.9 (5.1) kg/m(2) and age 62.6 (11.1) years. Patients were randomized to either a low-energy diet (LED 3.4MJ/day), or a control diet (5MJ/day). The LED group had weekly dietary sessions, whereas the control group was given a booklet describing weight loss practices. Changes in body weight and body composition were examined as independent predictors of changes in knee OA symptoms. Symptoms were monitored by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities' (WOMAC) OA index.

RESULTS

The LED and control group lost a mean (SE) of 11.1 (0.6)% and 4.3 (0.6)%, respectively, with a mean difference being 6.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.5 to 8.1%; P<0.0001). The decrease in body fat percent was higher in the LED group, 2.2% (1.5 to 3.0%; P<0.0001). The total WOMAC index improved in the LED group (P<0.0001), but not in the control group (P=0.12), mean difference: -219.3mm (-369.2 to -69.4mm; P=0.005). The 'Number Needed to Treat (NNT)' to ensure an improvement in WOMAC>/=50% was 3.4 (2.1 to 8.8) patients. Changes in total WOMAC index were best predicted by the reduction of body fat percent, with a 9.4% (4.8 to 13.9%) improvement in WOMAC for each percent of body fat reduced (P=0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

In our patients with knee OA, a weight reduction of 10% improved function by 28%. LED might be of advantage to control diet because of the rapidity of weight loss and a more significant loss of body fat.

How the type of risk reduction influences required sample sizes in randomised clinical trials

To increase change between groups, randomised clinical trials (RCT) often include patients with high risk for a particular outcome, by inclusion criteria that select predictors for that outcome. This increases the statistical power, and fewer patients are required for that RCT. The way in which patient selection influences the power, and thus sample size required, depends on how an intervention reduces the individual risk: by an absolute or relative risk reduction model.