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

Characterization of missing data patterns and mechanisms in longitudinal composite outcome trial in rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Composite measures, like the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints (DAS28), are key primary outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials. DAS28 combines four different components in a continuous measure. When one or more of these components are missing the overall composite score is also missing at intermediate or trial endpoint assessments.

Objectives

This study examined missing data patterns and mechanisms in a longitudinal RA trial to evaluate how best to handle missingness when analysing composite outcomes.

Design

The Tumour-Necrosis-Factor Inhibitors against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT) trial was an open label, pragmatic randomized multicentre two arm non-inferiority study. Patients were followed up for 12 months, with monthly measurement of the composite outcome and its components. Active RA patients were randomized to conventional disease modifying drugs (cDMARDs) or Tumour Necrosis Factor-α inhibitors (TNFis).

Methods

The TACIT trial was used to explore the extent of missing data in the composite outcome, DAS28. Patterns of missing data in components and the composite outcome were examined graphically. Longitudinal multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed missing data mechanisms during follow-up.

Results

Two hundred and five patients were randomized: at 12 months 59/205 (29%) had unobserved composite outcome and 146/205 (71%) had an observed DAS28 outcome; however, 34/146 had one or more intermediate assessments missing. We observed mixed missing data patterns, especially for the missing composite outcome due to one component missing rather than patient not attending thier visit. Age and gender predicted missingness components, providing strong evidence the missing observations were unlikely to be Missing Completely at Random (MCAR).

Conclusion

Researchers should undertake detailed evaluations of missing data patterns and mechanisms at the final and intermediate time points, whether or not the outcome variable is a composite outcome. In addition, the impact on treatment estimates in patients who only provide data at milestone assessments need to be assessed.

Trial Registration ISRCTN Number

37438295.

Current Use of Cardiac Biomarkers in Various Heart Conditions

Biomarkers are increasingly recognized to have significant clinical value in early identification and progression of various cardiovascular diseases. There are many heart conditions, such as congestive heart failure (CHF), ischemic heart diseases (IHD), and diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM), and cardiac remodeling, in which the severity of the cardiac pathology can be mirrored through these cardiac biomarkers. From the emergency department (ED) evaluation of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiac marker Troponin to the diagnosis of chronic conditions like Heart Failure (HF) with natriuretic peptides, like B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal pro-B- type natriuretic peptide (Nt-proBNP) and mid regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR- proANP), their use is continuously increasing. Their clinical importance has led to the discovery of newer biomarkers, such as the soluble source of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2), galectin-3 (Gal-3), growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), and various micro ribonucleic acids (miRNAs). Since cardiac pathophysiology involves a complex interplay between inflammatory, genetic, neurohormonal, and biochemical levels, these biomarkers could be enzymes, hormones, and biologic substances showing cardiac injury, stress, and malfunction. Therefore, multi-marker approaches with different combinations of novel cardiac biomarkers, and continual assessment of cardiac biomarkers are likely to improve cardiac risk prediction, stratification, and overall patient wellbeing. On the other hand, these biomarkers may reflect coexisting or isolated disease processes in different organ systems other than the cardiovascular system. Therefore, knowledge of cardiac biomarkers is imperative. In this article, we have reviewed the role of cardiac biomarkers and their use in the diagnosis and prognosis of various cardiovascular diseases from different investigations conducted in recent years.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD.

METHODS

We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument).

RESULTS

In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

The extra-articular impacts of rheumatoid arthritis: moving towards holistic care

Although treat-to-target has revolutionised the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) there is emerging evidence that attaining the target of remission is insufficient to normalise patients’ quality of life, and ameliorate the extra-articular impacts of RA. RA has a broad range of effects on patient’s lives, with four key “extra-articular” impacts being pain, depression and anxiety, fatigue and rheumatoid cachexia. All of these are seen frequently; for example, studies have reported that 1 in 4 patients with RA have high-levels of fatigue. Commonly used drug treatments (including simple analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anti-depressants) have, at most, only modest benefits and often cause adverse events. Psychological strategies and dynamic and aerobic exercise all reduce issues like pain and fatigue, although their effects are also only modest. The aetiologies of these extra-articular impacts are multifactorial, but share overlapping components. Consequently, patients are likely to benefit from management strategies that extend beyond the assessment and treatment of synovitis, and incorporate more broad-based, or “holistic”, assessments of the extra-articular impacts of RA and their management, including non-pharmacological approaches. Innovative digital technologies (including tablet and smartphone “apps” that directly interface with hospital systems) are increasingly available that can directly capture patient-reported outcomes during and between clinic visits, and include them within electronic patient records. These are likely to play an important future role in delivering such approaches.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

REVIEW METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

FUTURE WORK

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

CONCLUSION

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The road from development to approval: evaluating the body of evidence to confirm biosimilarity

Biosimilars are products that contain a similar version of the active substance of an already authorized original biologic medicinal product (reference medicinal product). Their development requires special consideration, as similarity to the reference agent needs to be established through a comprehensive comparability exercise. Given the complex nature of these agents, minor structural differences may emerge, but the process of biosimilarity determination is designed to ascertain that the nature and impact of these differences are not clinically significant. Determination of biosimilarity should follow quality-by-design principles, which provide a deep understanding of the product development process, guided by pre-defined objectives, process control and risk management. Compared with novel biologic development, biosimilar development places greater emphasis on establishing preclinical quality characteristics. Determination of comparability of quality characteristics includes assessment of physicochemical properties, biological activity, immunochemical properties, purity, impurity and quantity, with appropriate in vivo pharmacology studies being conducted thereafter. Head-to-head comparisons are then conducted to determine pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and efficacy, safety and tolerability in phase I and phase III clinical studies. Post-approval risk management requirements include implementation of pharmacovigilance systems and risk management through, for example, the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies. There are several biosimilars used in the field of rheumatology that are available in the European Union, or in development, that offer the potential to increase affordability/accessibility of biological treatment. The role of these agents in rheumatology will be determined by the confidence placed in them by rheumatologists. These prescribers should expect high-quality data evaluated by an extensive assessment process.

Neutropenia in the Elderly: A Rheumatology Perspective

The majority of rheumatic diseases are chronic and require long-term use of disease-modifying agents to confer the best chance of controlling the disease. A significant proportion of these drugs have a risk, albeit small, of potentially serious side effects, such as neutropenia; therefore, there has been an understandable concern over the use of potentially toxic rheumatic drugs in the elderly. Factors that may contribute to this concern include age, pre-existing co-morbidities, polypharmacy, difficulty in monitoring side effects, and patient perception. The risk of using such medication needs to be balanced with their benefits in controlling chronic disease. This review discusses how rheumatic disease and anti-rheumatic medication are associated with neutropenia in an older age group. Of the rheumatic diseases, we give special focus to rheumatoid arthritis and the use of methotrexate, as well as touching on management considerations in neutropenia.

Reviewing the evidence for biosimilars: key insights, lessons learned and future horizons

Biologic therapies have become central to the long-term management of many chronic diseases, including inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Over recent years, the development and licensing pathways for biosimilars have become more standardized, and several biosimilars have been made available for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, such as RA. Pre-licensing requirements for biosimilars mandate the demonstration of comparability with reference products in terms of clinical activity, safety and immunogenicity, whereas post-marketing surveillance and risk minimization requirements are set in place to ensure that long-term, real-world safety data are collected to assess biosimilars in clinical practice. These measures should provide a foundation for physician confidence in biosimilars, which can be established further through clinical experience. Biosimilars may help to fill an unmet need by improving patient access to effective biologic treatments for chronic diseases. Greater access may result in additional clinical benefits, with appropriate use of biologic therapies according to treatment guidelines being associated with improved outcomes and the potential for reduced costs of care. Key challenges for the integration of biosimilars into everyday practice include questions about interchangeability, switching and automatic substitution. Several switching studies have shown that biosimilars can be used in place of reference products while maintaining efficacy and safety. Additional ongoing studies and registries may help to optimize the process of switching, and different funding models are examining the optimal mechanisms to ensure effective uptake of these new treatments.

Biosimilars in rheumatology: A review of the evidence and their place in the treatment algorithm

Determining biosimilarity involves a comprehensive exercise with a focus on determining the comparability of the molecular characteristics and preclinical profile of the biosimilar and reference product, such that there is less need for extensive clinical testing to assure comparability of clinical outcomes. Three anti-TNF biosimilar agents are approved for patients with rheumatic diseases in the European Union. The infliximab (Remicade®) biosimilars CT-P13 (Remsima® and Inflectra®) and SB2 (Flixabi®) and the etanercept (Enbrel®) biosimilar SB4 (Benepali®) have shown close comparability to their reference medicinal products, having undergone extensive evaluations. Guidelines on the treatment of rheumatic diseases have acknowledged that biosimilars and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are interchangeable in clinical practice, except when patients experience lack of efficacy or tolerability with the reference agent. Given that cost is a barrier to effective bDMARD use, the introduction of less costly biosimilars is likely to widen access and dissipate treatment inequalities. Physicians faced with prescribing decisions should be reassured by the robust and exhaustive process that is involved in assuring comparability of biosimilars with their reference agents. De novo usage of a biosimilar and switching to a biosimilar following lack of efficacy or tolerability with a different reference biologic agent are likely to be strategies most easily adopted, although switching during successful treatment should also be considered given the potential cost implications. The introduction of biosimilar bDMARDs has the potential to improve patient access to effective biologic therapy, to better accommodate restraints within healthcare budgets and to improve overall patient outcomes.

The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain whether strategies of treatment with a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) are cost-effective in an English setting. Results are presented for those patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and those with severe RA.

METHODS

An economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 7 bDMARD was developed. A systematic literature review and network metaanalysis was undertaken to establish relative clinical effectiveness. The results were used to populate the model, together with estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score following European League Against Rheumatism response; annual costs, and utility, per HAQ band; trajectory of HAQ for patients taking bDMARD; and trajectory of HAQ for patients using nonbiologic therapy (NBT). Results were presented as those associated with the strategy with the median cost-effectiveness. Supplementary analyses were undertaken assessing the change in cost-effectiveness when only patients with the most severe prognoses taking NBT were provided with bDMARD treatment. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were compared with reported thresholds from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of £20,000 to £30,000 (US$24,700 to US$37,000).

RESULTS

In the primary analyses, the cost per QALY of a bDMARD strategy was £41,600 for patients with severe RA and £51,100 for those with moderate to severe RA. Under the supplementary analyses, the cost per QALY fell to £25,300 for those with severe RA and to £28,500 for those with moderate to severe RA.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of bDMARD in RA in England is questionable and only meets current accepted levels in subsets of patients with the worst prognoses.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Preventing Collateral Damage in Crohn's Disease: The Lémann Index

Crohn's disease [CD] is a chronic progressive and destructive condition. Half of all CD patients will develop bowel damage at 10 years. As in rheumatic diseases, preventing the organ damage consequent to CD complications [fistula, abscess, and/or stricture] is emerging as a new therapeutic goal for these patients in clinical practice. This might be the only way to alter disease course, as surgery is often required for disease complications. Similar to the joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis, bowel damage has also emerged as a new endpoint in disease-modification trials such as the REACT trial. Recently, the Lemann Index [LI] has been developed to measure CD-related bowel damage, and to assess damage progression over time, in order to evaluate the impact of therapeutic strategies in terms of preventing bowel damage. While validation is pending, recent reports suggested that bowel damage is reversible by anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapy. The Lémann index may play a key role in CD management, and should be implemented in all upcoming disease-modification trials in CD.