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)

Integrating Price Benchmarks and Comparative Clinical Effectiveness to Inform the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program

OBJECTIVES

By September 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will publicly report the negotiated prices (Maximum Fair Prices) for the first 10 drugs selected for price negotiation. We estimate initial price offers based on net prices, statutorily defined ceilings, and comparative effectiveness data for the 10 drugs and their therapeutic alternatives.

METHODS

We utilized net prices and other price benchmarks for the 10 drugs and their therapeutic alternatives. We searched for data on comparative clinical effectiveness for the primary indications. We outlined a range of plausible initial price offers based on CMS guidance and our interpretation of regulatory intent.

RESULTS

For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, statutorily defined ceiling prices will likely determine the initial price offers. The integration of net pricing and clinical evidence from comparator branded products will inform the initial price offers for apixaban, empagliflozin, etanercept, and insulin aspart. Rivaroxaban and sacubitril/valsartan have therapeutic alternatives that are generics; therefore, CMS may apply a discount to current net prices. To achieve savings in the negotiation of dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, CMS will have to leverage additional negotiation factors because statutory defined ceilings and net prices of therapeutic alternatives are similar or higher.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis sheds light on important price benchmarks and clinical evidence factors for the determination of the initial price offers. Although we were not able to simulate the offer and counter-offer process, our findings provide a transparent and systematic way to produce initial offers that are consistent with CMS guidance.

The Effect of Depression on Disease Activity and Treatment Response in Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis: Results from a Narrative Literature Review

Background

Inflammatory arthritis refers to a group of diseases that have a common presentation of joint pain, stiffness, and inflammation. Meanwhile, major depressive disorder is a mental health disorder characterized by anhedonia and low mood. Inflammatory arthritis patients have high rates of major depressive disorder, estimated at being up to 38.8%. Depression leads to a significant reduction in patient's health-related quality of life, treatment adherence, and many other measures of health, both subjective and clinical.

Purpose

This literature review explores the effect that depression has on treatment response for the drugs used in inflammatory arthritis.

Methods

A systematic search using PubMed was conducted identifying articles which were each reviewed for relevance and eligibility.

Results

Depression was negatively associated with treatment response to all classes of drugs used to manage inflammatory arthritis, with an increased disease activity and/or number of swollen/tender joints, as well as a reduced rate of remission being recorded for patients with depression compared to those without. However, this effect on treatment response was less clear when conventional synthetic Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs were studied, possibly because their anti-inflammatory effects have wide impacts on the whole immune system, whereas biologic Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs have very specific targets.

Conclusion

Inflammatory arthritis patients have a significantly lowered response to most drugs when they have depression. Screening and treating depression may attenuate this association. It is recommended that further research focuses on screening for and treating depression in inflammatory arthritis patients.

Rational approach to the prescription of anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a product leaflet-based strategy in Italy

The treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has dramatically changed in the past 30 years. Currently, numerous conventional, biologic, and targeted synthetic DMARDs have been licensed and used following recommendations provided by international and national scientific societies. However, the availability of biosimilars and the increasing necessity of savings impacted on the local/national prescription of these drugs. The information provided by data sheet of every single drug is a decisive factor on the choice of a certain treatment merged with the patient's profile. Thus, our purpose was to construct a rational algorithm for the treatment strategy in RA according to costs and the product leaflet of the biologic and targeted-synthetic DMARDs currently licensed in Italy. We used the most recent available recommendations and then we performed a review of the literature considering all the factors that are known to influence drug safety/effectiveness. All these factors were considered in the context of the data sheets of currently available originators and biosimilars.

Therapeutic advances in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most common immune mediated inflammatory diseases. People with rheumatoid arthritis present with pain, swelling, and stiffness that typically affects symmetrically distributed small and large joints. Without effective treatment, significant joint damage, disability, and work loss develop, owing to chronic inflammation of the joint lining (synovium). Over the past 25 years, the management of this condition has been revolutionized, resulting in substantially higher levels of disease remission and better long term outcomes. This improvement reflects a paradigm shift towards early and aggressive pharmacological intervention coupled with a proliferation in treatment choice, in turn related to enhanced pathobiological understanding and the advent of new drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Following an overview of these developments from a historical perspective, and with a general audience in mind, this review focuses on newer, targeted treatments in an ever evolving landscape. The review highlights ongoing areas of debate and unmet need, including the proportion of patients with persistent, difficult-to-treat disease, despite recent advances. Also discussed are personalized, strategic approaches to individual patients, the role for imaging in clinical decision making, and the goal of sustained, drug free remission and disease prevention in the future.

National burden of rheumatoid arthritis in Canada, 1990-2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 - a GBD collaborator-led study

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were: (1) to describe burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and trends from 1990 to 2019 using the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study (GBD) data, (2) to describe age and sex differences in RA and (3) to compare Canada's RA burden to that of other countries.

METHODS

Disease burden indicators included prevalence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). GBD estimated fatal and non-fatal outcomes using published literature, survey data and health insurance claims. Data were analysed by Bayesian meta-regression, cause of death ensemble model and other statistical methods. DALYs for Canada were compared with DALYs of countries with similarly high Socio-Demographic Index values.

RESULTS

In Canada, the RA prevalence rate increased by 27% between 1990 and 2019, mortality rate decreased by 27%, YLL rate decreased by 30%, YLD increased by 27% and DALY rate increased by 13%, all age standardised. The decline in RA mortality and YLL rates was especially pronounced after 2002. The disease burden was higher in females for all indicators, and DALY rates were higher among older age groups, peaking at age 75-79 years. Prevalence and DALYs were higher in Canada compared with global rates.

CONCLUSION

Trends in RA burden indicators over time and differences by age and sex have important implications for Canadian policy-makers, researchers and care providers. Early identification and management of RA in women may help reduce the overall burden of RA in Canada.

How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey

OBJECTIVES

To describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence.

DESIGN

Systematic survey.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down.

RESULTS

Of the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.

A systematic comparison of different composite measures (DAS 28, CDAI, SDAI, and Boolean approach) for determining treatment effects on low disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Some composite measures for determining the treatment effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on remission and low disease activity (LDA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may produce misleading results if they include an acute phase reactant (APR). To inform the choice of appropriate measure, we performed a systematic comparison of treatment effects using different composite measures.

METHODS

We used data generated for a systematic review of biologics in RA conducted by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and data from systematic reviews of newer biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors provided by sponsors. The studies included had been conducted up to 2020 and investigated comparisons of biologics with placebo and head-to-head comparisons of biologics. Treatment effects on LDA and remission in studies investigating biologics or JAK inhibitors in RA were compared among 4 composite measures: the disease activity score 28 (DAS 28), the simplified disease activity index (SDAI), the Boolean approach (remission only), and the clinical disease activity index (CDAI)-only the latter does not include an APR.

RESULTS

49 placebo-controlled studies included 9 different biologics; 48 studies (16,233 patients) investigated LDA and 49 (16,338 patients) investigated remission. 11 active-controlled studies (5996 patients) investigated both LDA and remission and included 5 different head-to-head comparisons of biologics and 5 different comparisons (6 studies) of biologics with JAK inhibitors. Statistically significantly larger treatment effects were found for biologics or JAK inhibitors versus placebo or active control in 16% of pairwise comparisons of composite measures (27 of 168). Most of these larger effects were observed for composite measures with an APR, i.e. the DAS 28 (19 comparisons) followed by the SDAI (n = 7). Larger effects were most frequently detected in favour of interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors and to a lesser extent for JAK inhibitors versus treatments with different modes of action.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the DAS 28 and SDAI in clinical studies may generate results favouring certain treatments based on their mode of action (e.g. IL-6 inhibitors versus other biologics). To enable unbiased comparative effectiveness research, a composite measure without an APR (i.e. the CDAI) should thus be the measure of choice.

Targeted and activatable nanosystem for fluorescent and optoacoustic imaging of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and therapy via inhibiting NF-κB/NLRP3 pathways

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) represent a diverse group of diseases and challenges remain for the current medications. Herein, we present an activatable and targeted nanosystem for detecting and imaging IMIDs foci and treating them through blocking NF-κB/NLRP3 pathways. A ROS-activatable prodrug BH-EGCG is synthesized by coupling a near-infrared chromophore with the NF-κB/NLRP3 inhibitor epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) through boronate bond which serves as both the fluorescence quencher and ROS-responsive moiety. BH-EGCG molecules readily form stable nanoparticles in aqueous medium, which are then coated with macrophage membrane to ensure the actively-targeting capability toward inflammation sites. Additionally, an antioxidant precursor N-acetylcysteine is co-encapsulated into the coated nanoparticles to afford the nanosystem BH-EGCG&NAC@MM to further improve the anti-inflammatory efficacy. Benefiting from the inflammation-homing effect of the macrophage membrane, the nanosystem delivers payloads (diagnostic probe and therapeutic drugs) to inflammatory lesions more efficiently and releases a chromophore and two drugs upon being triggered by the overexpressed in-situ ROS, thus exhibiting better theranostic performance in the autoimmune hepatitis and hind paw edema mouse models, including more salient imaging signals and better therapeutic efficacy via inhibiting NF-κB pathway and suppressing NLRP3 inflammasome activation. This work may provide perceptions for designing other actively-targeting theranostic nanosystems for various inflammatory diseases.

Cytokine Networks in the Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by chronic systemic inflammation causing progressive joint damage that can lead to lifelong disability. The pathogenesis of RA involves a complex network of various cytokines and cells that trigger synovial cell proliferation and cause damage to both cartilage and bone. Involvement of the cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and interleukin (IL)-6 is central to the pathogenesis of RA, but recent research has revealed that other cytokines such as IL-7, IL-17, IL-21, IL-23, granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), IL-1β, IL-18, IL-33, and IL-2 also play a role. Clarification of RA pathology has led to the development of therapeutic agents such as biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, and further details of the immunological background to RA are emerging. This review covers existing knowledge regarding the roles of cytokines, related immune cells and the immune system in RA, manipulation of which may offer the potential for even safer and more effective treatments in the future.

Risk of harm in synthetic and biological intervention trials in patients with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a metaepidemiological study focusing on contextual factors

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory arthritis (IA) conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, are characterised by inflammatory infiltration of the joints. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively, reduce the effects of proinflammatory cytokines and immune cells to ameliorate disease. However, immunosuppression can be associated with high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, and maybe an increased risk of malignancies and cardiovascular events. Currently, there is no empirical evidence on the extent to which contextual factors and risk of bias (RoB) domains may modify these harm signals in randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed) for systematic reviews published since April 2015 and all Cochrane reviews. From these reviews, randomised trials will be eligible if they include patients with an IA condition with at least one group randomly allocated to bDMARD and/or tsDMARD treatments. A predefined form will be used for extracting data on population characteristics (eg, baseline characteristics or eligibility criteria, such as medication background) and specific harm outcome measures, such as number of withdrawals, numbers of patients discontinuing due to adverse events and number of patients having SAEs. RoB in individual trials will be assessed using a modified Cochrane RoB tool. We will estimate the potentially causal harm effects related to the experimental intervention compared with control comparator as risk ratios, and heterogeneity across randomised comparisons will be assessed statistically and evaluated as inconsistency using the I² Index. Our metaregression analyses will designate population and trial characteristics and each RoB domain as independent variables, whereas the three harm domains will serve as dependent variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study. Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171124.

Equivalence and switching between biosimilars and reference molecules in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).

METHODS

We will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Effect of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on major cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were developed to treat joint inflammation. There is growing evidence that anti-inflammatory drugs prevent major cardiovascular events (MACE). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine whether DMARDs reduce the risk of MACE. A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of DMARDs on cardiovascular events. The primary outcome was MACE defined as the first occurrence of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction or stroke alone and all-cause mortality. Safety was assessed by fatal or life threatening infection. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models and reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study quality and publication bias were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias and funnel plots. Twelve RCTs involving 18,056 participants testing three different DMARDs subclasses (Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitors—4 trials; Janus Kinase inhibitors—5 trials; Interleukin inhibitors—3 trials) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that none of the DMARD subclasses had any effect on MACE, MI alone, stroke alone, risk of fatal or life threatening infection or death. Risk of bias was high, low and unclear in five, six and one studies respectively. Funnel plots suggested a low possibility of publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that DMARDs do not affect the incidence of MACE. More trials are needed for firm conclusions.

Enhancement of an Auto-Injector Device for Self-Administration of Etanercept in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Confers Emotional and Functional Benefits

INTRODUCTION

Etanercept is effective in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can be self-administered via an auto-injector. While these devices are generally well accepted, some patients are not comfortable with the process of self-administration; this has been cited as a reason for discontinuation of biologic treatment. Alternative routes of administration (e.g., infusion) are more resource intensive. The aim of this analysis was to explore the attributes of auto-injection devices that impact patient confidence and ability to self-administer.

METHODS

Patients with RA (n = 168) and healthcare providers (n = 82) in Belgium, Germany, Japan, Spain, and the UK were interviewed (n = 250 overall). Mock injection procedures were carried out using an auto-injector device with the addition of a sleeve with a wider rubber grip. Importance of and performance of the device against a range attributes were captured using a Likert scale (1-7). Disease severity was captured using the Cochin hand function scale.

RESULTS

Device attributes reported by patients to be most important were 'use without assistance' 'ease of administration', 'ease of operation', and 'ease of grip'. The device with additional sleeve performed strongly against these attributes, scoring 6.9 (out of 7), 6.8, 6.8, and 6.6, respectively with no difference observed between countries. Nurses and physicians reported similar responses. Qualitatively, patients reported that stability and grip provided a sense of control and reduced anxiety. Similar overall 'ease of operation' was reported between patients with mild (n = 89) or moderate/severe (n = 71) disease (score 6.4 vs. 6.5, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The auto-injector plus sleeve performed strongly against key attributes even in patients with moderate/severe RA and patients with reduced grip strength. The robust grip improved patient confidence and reduced injection-related anxiety. This may be beneficial in patients who are anxious about self-administration, those new to self-administration, and potentially in patients with reduced hand dexterity as a result of either advanced disease or a painful day.

Comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis in sufficiently similar patient populations, based on the current definitions of key outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data on key outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis provided by study sponsors for studies conducted up to 2017, and several databases and registries from inception up to February 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials investigating patient relevant outcomes in adults with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological medicines in combination with methotrexate after methotrexate failure for at least 24 weeks.

RESULTS

45 eligible trials were identified. Combining data from clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data allowed extensive analyses yielding sufficiently similar populations and homogeneous study results for network meta-analyses, including up to 35 studies on eight biological medicines combined with methotrexate. These analyses showed few statistically significant differences between the combination treatments. For example, anakinra showed less benefit than almost all the other seven biological medicines regarding clinical remission or low disease activity (clinical disease activity index ≤2.8 or ≤10, respectively) and certolizumab pegol showed more harm than the other seven biological medicines regarding serious adverse events or infections. Some outcomes had very wide 95% confidence intervals, potentially implying unidentified differences between the eight biological medicines, but wide 95% confidence intervals were less prominent for low disease activity, serious adverse events, and infections. Owing to a lack of head-to-head trials, results were mainly based on indirect comparisons with a limited number of studies, and recently approved Janus kinase inhibitors could not be included.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure, only minor differences in benefits and harms were seen between biological medicines in combination with methotrexate. However, the analysis was hampered by a lack of long term direct comparisons. The substantial information gain achieved by the reanalysis of individual patient data calls for the routine availability of individual patient data.

Cho W, Martins N. Avocado-Soybean Unsaponifiables: A Panoply of Potentialities to Be Exploited

Avocado and soybean unsaponifiables (ASU) constitute vegetable extracts made from fruits and seeds of avocado and soybean oil. Characterized by its potent anti-inflammatory effects, this ASU mixture is recommended to act as an adjuvant treatment for osteoarthritic pain and slow-acting symptomatic treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis; autoimmune diseases; diffuse scleroderma and scleroderma-like states (e.g., morphea, sclerodactyly, scleroderma in bands). Besides, it was reported that it can improve the mood and quality of life of postmenopausal women in reducing menopause-related symptoms. This article aims to summarize the studies on biological effects of the avocado-soybean unsaponifiable, its chemical composition, pharmacotherapy as well as applications in auto-immune, osteoarticular and menopausal disorders. Finally, we will also discuss on its safety, toxicological and regulatory practices.

Decomposition Analysis of Spending and Price Trends for Biologic Antirheumatic Drugs in Medicare and Medicaid

OBJECTIVE

Billions of public dollars are spent each year on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the drivers of recent increases in biologic DMARD spending are unclear. This study was undertaken to characterize changes in total spending and unit prices for biologic DMARDs in Medicare and Medicaid programs and quantified the major sources of these spending increases.

METHODS

We accessed drug spending data from years 2012-2016, covering all Medicare Part B (fee-for-service), Medicare Part D, and Medicaid enrollees. After calculating 5-year changes in total spending and unit prices for each biologic DMARD as well as in aggregate, we performed standard decomposition analyses to isolate 4 sources of spending growth: drug prices, uptake (number of recipients), treatment intensity (mean number of doses per claim), and treatment duration (annual number of claims per recipient), both excluding and including time-varying rebates.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2016, annual spending on public-payer claims for the 10 biologic DMARDs included in this study more than doubled ($3.8 billion to $8.6 billion), with median drug price increases of 51% in Medicare Part D (mean 54%) and 8% in Medicare Part B (mean 21%). With adjustment for general inflation, unit price increases alone accounted for 57% of the 5-year, $3.0 billion spending increase in Part D, while 37% of the spending increase was from increased uptake. Accounting for time-varying rebates, prices were still responsible for 54% of increased spending. Unit prices and spending were lower under Medicaid than under Medicare Part D, though temporal trends and contributors were similar.

CONCLUSION

Postmarket drug price changes alone account for the majority of the recent spending growth in biologic DMARDs. Policy interventions targeting price increases, particularly those under Medicare Part D plans, may help mitigate financial burdens for public payers and biologic DMARD recipients.

Efficacy and safety of total glucosides of paeony combined with methotrexate and leflunomide for active rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis

Purpose: Total glucosides of paeony (TGP) have been confirmed to reduce hepatotoxicity caused by methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Nevertheless, high-quality evidence-based meta-analysis data on the issue are unavailable. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination treatment for RA.

Materials and methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials, Chinese Biomedical Literature database, China National Knowledge Internet, Wan Fang, and VIP were searched up to February 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of TGP combined MTX and LEF for RA were included.

Results: Eight RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. Pooled results showed better therapeutic effects against RA in the TGP-treated group (RR =1.10, 95% CI: 1.04 −1.16). The TGP+MTX+LEF group showed a reduced erythrocyte sedimentation rate (MD = −2.80 mm/h, 95% CI: −5.08 - −0.52), C-reactive protein level (MD = −4.17 mg/L, 95% CI: −7.84 - −0.51), and rheumatoid factor (MD = −12.09 IU/mL, 95% CI: −14.05 - −10.14). Besides, the combination treatment tended to benefit lipid profiles (total cholesterol: 95% CI: −1.27–0.06; triglycerides: 95% CI: −0.49 - −0.08; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: 95% CI: 0.15–0.83; and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: 95% CI: −0.54 - −0.02). Adverse events, hepatotoxicity in particular, significantly decreased (RR =0.55, 95% CI: 0.38–0.80) in the TGP group.

Conclusion: Compared to MTX and LEF therapy, TGP combination treatment may be a more effective and safer strategy. It is advisable to apply TGP as an adjuvant given its hepatoprotective and possible lipid-regulating effect. However, further large-scale and high-quality clinical trials are warranted, and the efficacy of TGP in terms of its effect on lipid profiles should be further confirmed.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28) < 2.6. In addition, serious infections and serious adverse events (SI/SAE) were examined at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Nine trials were selected for the NMA. Sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority versus adalimumab monotherapy on all efficacy outcomes and versus tofacitinib monotherapy on ACR20. Compared with csDMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority on ACR 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28 < 2.6 but had similar efficacy on HAQ-DI. Efficacy of sarilumab 200 mg was similar versus certolizumab, etanercept, tofacitinib and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg monotherapy across all efficacy outcomes. SI/SAE appeared similar for sarilumab 200 mg versus all comparators.

CONCLUSION

In csDMARD-IR patients, sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy has superior efficacy and similar safety versus csDMARDs, superior efficacy and similar safety versus adalimumab, and similar efficacy and safety versus bDMARDs and tsDMARDs.

FUNDING

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Etanercept was the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the United States (US) and Europe. The recent patent expiration of the etanercept originator ENBREL in Europe has facilitated the development of biosimilar products, creating the prospect of reduced treatment costs. In this article, we review the original trials for etanercept in RA to facilitate critical appraisal of biosimilar trial data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two etanercept biosimilars are currently approved in Europe and/or the US, SB4 (Benepali) and GP2015 (Erelzi), having met the pre-specified equivalence criteria for biosimilarity. Trial data demonstrates subtle differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events between the biosimilars and the reference product (RP). The development of etanercept biosimilars may reduce the financial burden of treating RA, but real-world data regarding efficacy and safety in comparison to the RP will be vital to assess for meaningful differences.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Recommendations for optimizing methotrexate treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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