Utility-based outcomes made easy: the number needed per quality-adjusted life year gained. An observational cohort study of tumor necrosis factor blockade in inflammatory arthritis from Southern Sweden

Drug effectiveness of 2nd and 3rd TNF inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis - relationship with the reason for withdrawal from the previous treatment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate real-world retention and remission rates in PsA patients initiating a 2nd or 3rd TNFi and the association with reason for discontinuation from the previous TNFi-treatment.

METHODS

Prospectively collected routine care data from 12 European registries were pooled. Retention rates (Kaplan-Meier estimation) and crude/LUNDEX-adjusted rates of Disease Activity Score 28 and Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAS28 and DAPSA28) remission were calculated and compared with adjusted Cox regression analyses and Chi-squared test, respectively).

RESULTS

We included 5233 (2nd TNFi) and 1906 (3rd TNFi) patients. Twelve-month retention rates for the 2nd and 3rd TNFi were 68% (95%CI: 67-70%) and 66% (64-68%), respectively. Patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to AE/LOE had 12-month retention rates of 66%/65% (2nd TNFi), and 65%/63% (3rd TNFi), respectively. Patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to LOE after less vs more than 24 weeks had 12-month retention rates of 54%/69% (2nd TNFi), and 58%/65% (3rd TNFi). Six-month crude/LUNDEX-adjusted DAS28 remission rates were 48%/35% and 38%/27%, and DAPSA28 remission rates were 19%/14% and 14%/10%, for the 2nd and 3rd TNFi.

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients remained on TNFi at 12months for both the 2nd and 3rd TNFi, while one-third and one-quarter of patients were in DAS28 remission after 6months on the 2nd and 3rd TNFi. While drug effectiveness was similar in patients who stopped the previous TNFi due to AE compared to overall LOE, drug effectiveness was better in patients who had stopped the previous TNF due to secondary LOE compared to primary LOE.

Health state utility values derived from EQ-5D in psoriatic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To determine pooled EQ-5D utility scores for psoriasis as a general condition, plaque psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of EQ-5D utility scores for psoriatic patients was conducted. Univariate meta-regression was used to explore the degree of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included in the systematic review. The EQ-5D in psoriatic patients demonstrated decent convergent, known-groups validity, and a degree of responsiveness with a ceiling effect. Among the five EQ-5D dimensions, 'self-care' showed the lowest and 'pain/discomfort' showed the highest percentages of reporting any problems. For meta-analysis, we identified 70 utility scores from 59 studies: 22 for plaque psoriasis, 26 for psoriasis as a general condition, and 22 for psoriatic arthritis. The mean (95% CIs; I²) of the EQ-5D utility scores for psoriasis as a general condition, plaque psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis was 0.748 (0.718, 0.777; 98.8%), 0.755 (0.727, 0.783; 98.6%), and 0.585 (0.538, 0.632; 98.2%), respectively. For psoriasis as a general condition and plaque psoriasis, factors such as country, psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), dermatology life quality index (DLQI) and questionnaire version (EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L) all significantly influenced the utility scores.

CONCLUSION

Psoriasis imposes a substantial impairment on patients' quality of life, especially the pain/discomfort dimension. Heterogeneity exists among different EQ-5D utility values found in the literature.

Impact of biologic DMARDs on quality of life: 12-month results of a rheumatic diseases cohort using the Brazilian EQ-5D tariff

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between biological Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) use and quality of life (QoL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated adult patients prescribed biological DMARDs whose quality of life was evaluated at six and 12 months. The EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) was used with the Brazilian tariff.

RESULTS

Patients receiving bDMARDs had significant improvements in quality of life after 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001), regardless of the rheumatic condition and the therapeutic regimen (bDMARDs vs bDMARDs plus synthetic DMARDs) (ANCOVA; p > 0.05). At the end of one year, 62.6% of the participants presented significant clinical improvement in QoL. According to a sensitivity analysis, QoL results in the complete case analysis and in the multiple imputation model yielded similar conclusions. Patients with two or more comorbidities and worse QoL and disability status on baseline presented worse QoL at 12 months when compared to those with better disability status on baseline. Baseline clinical disease measured by activity indexes (BASDAI and CDAI) did not influence QoL after 12 months of bDMARD treatment. Pain and malaise were the EQ-5D domain that most influenced quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis displayed significantly better QoL levels following treatment with DMARDs.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of 'Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults' last updated in Issue 2, 2013. Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin, capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams. High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, often following local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trials registries, and a pharmaceutical company's website to 10 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least 6 weeks' duration, using high-concentration (5% or more) topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at specific points, usually 8 and 12 weeks. We also assessed average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline, and information on adverse events and withdrawals.We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 2488 participants, two more studies and 415 more participants than the previous version of this review. Studies were of generally good methodological quality; we judged only one study at high risk of bias, due to small size. Two studies used a placebo control and six used 0.04% topical capsaicin as an 'active' placebo to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.For postherpetic neuralgia, we found four studies (1272 participants). At both 8 and 12 weeks about 10% more participants reported themselves much or very much improved with high-concentration capsaicin than with 'active' placebo, with point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTs) of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) with high-concentration capsaicin and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) with 'active' placebo (2 studies, 571 participants; moderate quality evidence). More participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with capsaicin than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12 (2 to 4 studies, 571 to 1272 participants; very low quality evidence).For painful HIV-neuropathy, we found two studies (801 participants). One study reported the proportion of participants who were much or very much improved at 12 weeks (27% with high-concentration capsaicin and 10% with 'active' placebo). For both studies, more participants (about 10%) had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with capsaicin than control, with an NNT of 11 (very low quality evidence).For peripheral diabetic neuropathy, we found one study (369 participants). It reported about 10% more participants who were much or very much improved at 8 and 12 weeks. One small study of 46 participants with persistent pain following inguinal herniorrhaphy did not show a difference between capsaicin and placebo for pain reduction (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence for efficacy outcomes by one to three levels due to sparse data, imprecision, possible effects of imputation methods, and susceptibility to publication bias.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (3.5%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events (six to eight studies, 21 to 67 events; moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to few events). No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia, HIV-neuropathy, and painful diabetic neuropathy generated more participants with moderate or substantial levels of pain relief than control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. These results should be interpreted with caution as the quality of the evidence was moderate or very low. The additional proportion who benefited over control was not large, but for those who did obtain high levels of pain relief, there were usually additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is similar in its effects to other therapies for chronic pain.

What PASSes for good? Experience-based Swedish and hypothetical British EuroQol 5-Dimensions preference sets yield markedly different point estimates and patient acceptable symptom state cut-off values in chronic arthritis patients on TNF blockade

OBJECTIVES

Health utilities derived from answers to generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires such as the EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) are often used in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of new and expensive treatments. Different preference sets (tariffs) used in the computation of utility values and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from questionnaire responses (health states) yield varying results, potentially affecting decisions of resource allocation. The objective of the present study was to compare British (UK), hypothetical, and Swedish (SE), experience-based, EQ-5D utilities using data from clinical practice.

METHOD

UK and SE EQ-5D utilities were computed in an observational cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, comparing point estimates and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) cut-off levels.

RESULTS

SE utilities were found to be consistently higher than UK utilities, and PASS cut-offs were essentially stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS

With higher baseline utilities, there may be less room for improvement after an intervention and thus less accumulation of QALYs in CUAs applying the SE, as opposed to the UK, EQ-5D tariff.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection, and benefit-risk

Background

Gastroprotective agents (GPA) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin.

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of NSAIDs, protection against NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm, and balance of benefit and risk.

Methods

Free text searches of PubMed (December 2012) supplemented with “related citation” and “cited by” facilities on PubMed and Google Scholar for patient requirements, NSAID effectiveness, pain relief benefits, gastroprotective strategies, adherence to gastroprotection prescribing, and serious harm with NSAIDs and GPA.

Results

Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Meta-analyses of NSAID trials in musculoskeletal conditions had bimodal responses with good pain relief or little. Number needed to treat (NNTs) for good pain relief were 3 to 9. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RA) provided similar gastroprotection, with no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efficacy compared with high-dose H₂RA. Prescriber adherence to guidance on use of GPA with NSAIDS was 49% in studies published since 2005; patient adherence was less than 100%. PPI use at higher doses over longer periods is associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, including fracture; no such evidence was found for H₂RA. Patients with chronic conditions are more willing to accept risk of harm for successful treatment than their physicians.

Conclusion

Guidance on NSAIDs use should ensure that patients have a good level of pain relief and that gastroprotection is guaranteed for the NSAID delivering good pain relief. Fixed-dose combinations of NSAID plus GPA offer one solution.

Gain in quality-adjusted life-years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during 1 year of biological therapy: a prospective study in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is used to measure outcome in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) studies; identification of drivers of a gain in QALY might help predict a treatment response. We investigated how changes in components of the Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28) were associated with the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) responses; and what baseline variables predicted the change in QALY following 1 year of biological therapy.

METHODS

Data were collected at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months of biological therapy in Danish patients with RA and included bDAS28, sociodemographic data, comorbidity, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and EQ-5D scored using the Danish algorithm. A cross-tabulation based on EULAR versus EQ-5D responses was performed, and the association of each DAS28 component across the EULAR/EQ-5D response groups was tested. Predictors of a change in QALY were assessed in a multiple regression model including baseline clinical and patient-reported data as explanatory variables.

RESULTS

In total, 315 patients entered the study; 77% were women, 78% IgM rheumatoid factor-positive, with mean age 55 (SD 13) years, disease duration 10 (SD 8) years, mean DAS28 4.9 (SD 1.2), HAQ score 1.22 (SD 0.70), and EQ-5D score 0.60 (SD 0.19). Sixty-eight percent of patients gained QALY; the mean gain was 0.14 (SD 0.13). The patient global score was strongly correlated with both EULAR and EQ-5D responses. The gain in QALY increased with increasing patient global score and number of swollen joints, but not with C-reactive protein (CRP).

CONCLUSION

The subjective patient global score was the best baseline predictor of gain in QALY following biological therapy, while the objective CRP measure had no predictive value. It seems that no sharp demarcation between objective and subjective measures could be determined.

What works for whom? Determining the efficacy and harm of treatments for pain

There has been a tension between the needs of regulators and industry to demonstrate that interventions are effective and safe, and the needs of professionals to understand how well interventions will work for their patients, and patients to understand what might work for them as individuals. The custom has been to focus on statistical outcomes based on average results, but in-depth analysis based on outcomes obtained by individual patients demonstrates that few are average. Rather, a minority of patients achieve very large reductions in pain (responders), while the majority achieve little (nonresponders). Those who benefit in terms of pain also benefit in other areas, with improved sleep, fatigue, mood, function, quality of life, and ability to work. This changes how benefit and risk are seen; nonresponders should stop treatments that don't work and not, therefore, be exposed to risks, while responders have very large benefits to offset against rare but potentially serious harm. This alternative view, patient-centred and practice-orientated, has major implications for clinical practice, how and why we do clinical trials and how they are designed, how health economic evaluations are done, for decisions made by regulatory and other bodies, and for the theory and practice of evidence-based medicine.

The costs and consequences of adequately managed chronic non-cancer pain and chronic neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is distressing for patients and a burden on healthcare systems and society. Recent research demonstrates different aspects of the negative impact of chronic pain and the positive impact of successful treatment, making an overview of the costs and consequences of chronic pain appropriate.

OBJECTIVE

To examine recent literature on chronic noncancer and neuropathic pain prevalence, impact on quality and quantity of life, societal and healthcare costs, and impact of successful therapy.

METHODS

Systematic reviews (1999 to February 2012) following PRISMA guidelines were conducted to identify studies reporting appropriate outcomes.

RESULTS

Chronic pain has a weighted average prevalence in adults of 20%; 7% have neuropathic pain, and 7% have severe pain. Chronic pain impeded activities of daily living, work and work efficiency, and reduced quality and quantity of life. Effective pain therapy (pain intensity reduction of at least 50%) resulted in consistent improvements in fatigue, sleep, depression, quality of life, and work.

CONCLUSION

Strenuous efforts should be put into obtaining good levels of pain relief for people in chronic pain, including the opportunity for multiple drug switching, using reliable, validated, and relatively easily applied patient-centered outcomes. Detailed, thoughtful and informed decision analytic policy modeling would help understand the key elements in organizational change or service reengineering to plan the optimum pain management strategy to maximize pain relief and its stream of benefits against budgetary and other constraints. This paper contains the information on which such models can be based.

Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Topical creams with capsaicin are used to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Following application to the skin capsaicin causes enhanced sensitivity, followed by a period with reduced sensitivity and, after repeated applications, persistent desensitisation. High-concentration (8%) capsaicin patches were developed to increase the amount of capsaicin delivered; rapid delivery was thought to improve tolerability because cutaneous nociceptors are 'defunctionalised' quickly. The single application avoids noncompliance. Only the 8% patch formulation of capsaicin is available, with a capsaicin concentration about 100 times greater than conventional creams.High-concentration topical capsaicin is given as a single patch application to the affected part. It must be applied under highly controlled conditions, normally under local anaesthetic, due to the initial intense burning sensation it causes. The benefits are expected to last for about 12 weeks, when another application might be made.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from controlled trials on the efficacy and tolerability of topically applied, high-concentration (8%) capsaicin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov to December 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of at least six weeks' duration, using topical capsaicin to treat neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and validity, and extracted data on numbers of participants with pain relief (clinical improvement) after at least six weeks, and with local skin reactions. We calculated risk ratio and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) and harm (NNH). We sought details of definition of pain relief and specific adverse events.Efficacy outcomes reflecting long-duration pain relief after a single drug application were from the patient global impression of change (PGIC) at specific points, usually eight and 12 weeks. We regarded these outcomes as first-tier evidence. We regarded average pain scores over weeks 2 to 8 and 2 to 12 and the number and/or percentage of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 30% or at least 50% over baseline as second-tier evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, involving 2073 participants; they were of generally good reporting quality; the control was 0.04% topical capsaicin to help maintain blinding. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistently reported between studies, however, resulting in analyses for most outcomes being based on less than complete data.Four studies involved 1272 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. All efficacy outcomes were significantly better than control. At both eight and 12 weeks there was a significant benefit for high-concentration over low-concentration topical capsaicin for participants reporting themselves to be much or very much better, with point estimates of the NNTs of 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 26) and 7.0 (95% CI 4.6 to 15) respectively. More participants had average 2 to 8-week and 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% and at least 50% with active treatment than control, with NNT values between 10 and 12.Two studies involved 801 participants with painful HIV-neuropathy. In a single study the NNT at 12 weeks for participants to be much or very much better was 5.8 (95% CI 3.8 to 12). Over both studies more participants had average 2 to 12-week pain intensity reductions over baseline of at least 30% with active treatment than control, with an NNT of 11.Local adverse events were common, but not consistently reported. Serious adverse events were no more common with active treatment (4.1%) than control (3.2%). Adverse event withdrawals did not differ between groups, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were somewhat more common with control than active treatment, based on small numbers of events. No deaths were judged to be related to study medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-concentration topical capsaicin used to treat postherpetic neuralgia and HIV-neuropathy generates more participants with high levels of pain relief than does control treatment using a much lower concentration of capsaicin. The additional proportion who benefit over control is not large, but for those who do obtain high levels of pain relief there are additional improvements in sleep, fatigue, depression and an improved quality of life. High-concentration topical capsaicin is therefore similar to other therapies for chronic pain. In this case, the high cost of single and repeated applications suggest that high-concentration topical capsaicin is likely to be used when other available therapies have failed, and that it should probably not be used repeatedly without substantial documented pain relief. Even when efficacy is established, there are unknown risks, especially on epidermal innervation, of repeated application of long periods.

Quality of life and the outcome of established rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a long-term condition causing joint pain and swelling and sometimes systemic involvement. The aims of treatment are, first, to reduce the impact the disease has on a patient and, second, to halt progression of disease. The advent of intensive therapy, including biologics, has led to a major improvement in outcome. To assess treatment impact, formal outcome measures have been developed. Traditionally, these focussed on the clinical aspects such as disease activity and joint damage. More recently, there has been an increased focus on patient-related outcome measures including quality-of-life measures. These enable illness evaluation from patients' perspectives, examination of care quality and comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment. This article examines advantages and disadvantages of the various outcome measures which are generally used in RA, with a focus on quality of life and patient-related measures.

Biologics-based therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a major clinical problem, but treatments involving biologics have revolutionized its management. They target pathogenically relevant cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor and immune cells such as B cells. In RA, biologics reduce joint inflammation, limit erosive damage, decrease disability, and improve quality of life. Infections are the main risk associated with their use. Because of the high prices of biologics, their cost-effectiveness is a matter of debate. They are mainly coadministered with disease-modifying drugs such as methotrexate when the latter are found to achieve insufficient disease control on their own.