Similar effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and biologic agents on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analysis of 70 randomized placebo-controlled or drug-controlled studies, including 112 comparisons

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic, systemic, autoimmune inflammatory disease that mainly affects the joints and periarticular soft tissues. In this Seminar, we provide an overview of the main aspects of rheumatoid arthritis. Epidemiology and advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis will be reviewed. We will discuss the clinical manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis, classification criteria, and the value of imaging in the diagnosis of the disease. The advent of new medications and the accumulated scientific evidence demand continuous updating regarding the diagnosis and management, including therapy, of rheumatoid arthritis. An increasing number of patients are now able to reach disease remission. This major improvement in the outcome of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been determined by a combination of different factors (eg, early diagnosis, window of opportunity, treat-to-target strategy, advent of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and combination therapy). We will discuss the updated recommendations of the two most influential societies for rheumatology worldwide (ie, the American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, controversies (ie, the role of glucocorticoids in the management of rheumatoid arthritis and safety profile of Janus kinase inhibitors) and outstanding research questions, including precision medicine approach, prevention, and cure of rheumatoid arthritis will be highlighted.

Monotreatment With Conventional Antirheumatic Drugs or Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

This is the first network meta-analysis to assess outcomes associated with multiple conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid.

Objective

To analyze clinical outcomes after treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoid among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Data Sources

With no time restraint, English language articles were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant meta-analyses until September 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Four reviewers in pairs of 2 independently included controlled studies randomizing patients with rheumatoid arthritis to mono-conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoid, placebo, or nonactive treatment that recorded at least 1 outcome of tender joint count, swollen joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Of 1098 assessed articles, 130 articles (132 interventions) were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and data quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2. Data were extracted by a single author and checked independently by 2 authors. Data were analyzed using a random effect model, and data analysis was conducted from June 2021 to February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A protocol with hypothesis and study plan was registered before data recording. The most complete of recorded outcomes (tender joint count) was used as primary outcome, with imputations based on other outcomes to obtain a full analysis of all studies. Absolute change adjusted for baseline disease activity was assessed.

Results

A total of 29 interventions in 275 treatment groups among 132 randomized clinical trials (mean [range], 71.0% [27.0% to 100%] females in studies; mean [range] of ages in studies, 53 [36 to 70] years) were identified, which included 13 260 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The mean (range) duration of RA was 79 (2 to 243) months, and the mean (range) disease activity score was 6.3 (4.0 to 8.8). Compared with placebo, oral methotrexate was associated with a reduced tender joint count by 5.18 joints (95% credible interval [CrI], 4.07 to 6.28 joints). Compared with methotrexate, glucocorticoid (-2.54 joints; 95% CrI, -5.16 to 0.08 joints) and remaining drugs except cyclophosphamide (6.08 joints; 95% CrI, 0.44 to 11.66 joints) were associated with similar or lower tender joint counts.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study's results support the present role of methotrexate as the primary reference conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

The dichotomy of glucocorticosteroid treatment in immune-inflammatory rheumatic diseases: an evidence-based perspective and insights from clinical practice

Objectives

Glucocorticosteroids (GCs) are the most used anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs due to their effectiveness in managing pain and disease modification in many immune-inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). However, their use is limited because of adverse effects (AEs).

Material and methods

The authors analyzed recent studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational, translational studies and systematic reviews, providing an in-depth viewpoint on the benefits and drawbacks of GC use in rheumatology.

Results

Glucocorticosteroids are essential in managing life-threatening autoimmune diseases and a cornerstone in many IRDs given their swift onset of action, necessary in flares. Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated that when administered over a long time and on a low-dose basis, GC can slow the radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by at least 50%, satisfying the conventional definition of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). In the context of RA treatment, the use of modified-release prednisone formulations at night may offer the option of respecting circadian rhythms of both inflammatory response and HPA activation, thereby enabling low-dose GC administration to mitigate nocturnal inflammation and prolonged morning fatigue and joint stiffness. Long-term GC use should be individualized based on patient characteristics and minimized due to their potential AEs. Their chronic use, especially at medium/high dosages, might cause irreversible organ damage due to the burden of metabolic systemic effects and increased risk of infections. Many international guidelines recommend tapering/withdrawal of GCs in sustained remission. Treat-to-target (T2T) strategies are critical in setting targets for disease activity and reducing/discontinuing GCs once control is achieved.

Conclusions

Glucocorticosteroids' use in treating IRDs should be judicious, focused on minimizing use, tapering and discontinuing treatment, when possible, to improve long-term safety. Glucocorticosteroids remain part of many therapeutic regimens, particularly at low doses, and elderly RA patients, especially with associated chronic comorbidities, may benefit from long-term low-dose GC treatment. A personalized GC therapy is essential for optimal long-term outcomes.

Perioperative treatment with TNF inhibitors does not affect survival of total hip arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis: a registry-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this study was to investigate the effect of perioperative exposure to TNF inhibitors (TNFi) on the long-term survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in inflammatory arthritis patients from a large regional register of arthroplasty procedures (RIPO).

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of data from RIPO for THAs performed between 2008 and 2019. After extraction of the procedures of interest from the RIPO dataset, cross-matching with administrative databases were used to identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), primary osteoarthritis (OA), and treatments of interest. Three different cohorts of patients were identified: perioperative TNFi-treated patients (6 months before or after the surgery), perioperative non-bDMARD/tsDMARD (biologic or targeted-synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs), and OA.

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 5 years, survival rates (using any revision surgery as an endpoint) were not significantly different when perioperative TNFi users and non-bDMARD/tsDMARD patients were compared (p = 0.713), and between TNFi-treated and OA controls (p = 0.123). At the latest available follow-up, 2.5% patients in the TNFi cohort, 3% in the non-bDMARD/tsDMARD cohort, and 0.8% in the OA cohort underwent revision surgery. No significant differences were found comparing the risk of postoperative infection or aseptic loosening among groups.

CONCLUSION

Risk of revision surgery is not increased in patients with inflammatory arthritis perioperatively exposed to TNFi. Our results support the long-term safety of this class of molecules on survival of prosthetic implants.

Glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: current status and future studies

Since their first use for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the late 1940s, glucocorticoids (GCs) have been representing a substantial part of the therapeutic arsenal for RA. However, even if GCs are still widely prescribed drugs, their toxicity is discussed controversially, so obtaining consensus on their use in RA is difficult. Hence, the most recent European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology recommendations on early arthritis and RA management advocate the use of GCs as adjunct treatment to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, at the lowest dose possible and for the shortest time possible. However, the recommendations remain relatively vague on dose regimens and routes of administration. Here, we describe literature data on which the current recommendations are based as well as data from recent trials published since the drafting of the guidelines. Moreover, we make proposals for daily practice and provide suggestions for studies that could help clarifying the place of GCs in RA management. Indeed, numerous items, including the benefit/risk ratio of low-dose and very low-dose GCs and optimal duration of GCs as bridging therapy, remain on the research agenda, and future studies are needed to guide the next recommendations for RA.

Better clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis with perioperative glucocorticoids and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs after an average of 11.4-year follow-up

Background

Previous evidence suggested that perioperative anti-rheumatic therapy for patients receiving total knee arthroplasty (TKA) helped improve postoperative rehabilitation for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet long-term effects and outcomes of perioperative drug therapy in TKA presently remain unclear. This study investigated whether perioperative treatment with glucocorticoids (GC) and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can improve clinical outcomes for patients with RA undergoing TKA.

Methods

Patients between January 2000 and December 2011 were allocated into three groups based on perioperative drug therapy: A, control group (no GC or DMARDs), B, DMARD group (DMARDs given without GC), and C, co-therapy group (DMARDs plus GC). The patients were followed up for average 11.4 years. Baseline characteristics, pre- and post-operative Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS), laboratory parameters, and complications were recorded by follow-up.

Results

Fifty-six RA patients undergoing 91 TKAs were included in this study. Patients who received perioperative GC with DMARDs (group C) achieved larger/increased range of motion (ROM) (C:122.17 vs A:108.31 vs B:108.07, p = 0.001, partial eta squared (η² p) = 0.18) at 1 year, better HSS score (C, 83.01 vs A, 79.23 vs B, 77.35, p = 0.049, η² p = 0.067), pain relief (C, 1.09 vs A, 1.17 vs B, 1.75, p = 0.02, η² p = 0.094), and ROM (C, 130.81 vs A, 112.82 vs B, 113.58, p = 0.001, η²p = 0.142) at latest follow-up comparing with the other treatment groups. No differences were noted in laboratory tests, blood loss, volume of transfusion, or complications among groups.

Conclusions

Compared with the other perioperative anti-rheumatic treatments, the combination of GC and DMARDs results in improved HSS score, better function, larger range of motion, and reduced postoperative pain for TKA patients with RA in the long term. Further investigation is warranted to look for a better understanding of more specific medication effects and strike a good balance between the benefits and complications for long-term pharmacotherapy.

Major differences in medical and surgical treatment of psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two historic cohorts

OBJECTIVES

Substantial changes in the handling of patients with inflammatory arthritis have occurred during the past half century. Polyarticular psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been treated with the same synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but for PsA there is less documentation regarding their effect. For biologic DMARDs, evidence of effect is more convincing. We have previously investigated the risk of orthopaedic surgery in patients with RA and PsA to see whether the change in treatment over time has improved the long-term outcome of inflammatory arthritis. For RA, patients diagnosed from 1999 onwards had a lower risk of surgery than patients diagnosed in earlier years. For PsA, the risk of surgery did not change similarly. We wished to compare RA patients to PsA patients with regard to medical and surgical treatment.

METHOD

We compared a historic cohort of 1010 RA patients diagnosed in 1972-2009 to a historic cohort of 590 PsA patients diagnosed in 1954-2011.

RESULTS

PsA patients received significantly less medical treatment both in the first year of disease and during the disease course. Risk of surgery during the disease course was lower for PsA than for RA (20% vs 31%). The risk of surgery in RA patients diagnosed from 1999 onwards was similar to that of PsA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

PsA patients received less intensive treatment than RA patients. Their prognosis, regarding orthopaedic surgery, was also less severe. Contrary to RA, the change in treatment did not have beneficial effects regarding the risk of orthopaedic surgery.

Reduction in Upper Limb Joint Surgery Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis Using Danish Health Care Registers

OBJECTIVE

Joint replacement surgery is a proxy of severe joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on the incidence rate (IR) of upper limb joint replacements among newly diagnosed RA patients.

METHODS

Using the Danish National Patient Register, patients with incident RA from 1996-2012 were identified. Each patient was matched on age, sex, and municipality, with up to 10 general population controls. The age- and sex-standardized 5-year IR per 1,000 person-years of a composite outcome of any first joint replacement of the finger, wrist, elbow, or shoulder was calculated, and an interrupted time-series analysis was undertaken to investigate trends and changes of the IR in the pre-bDMARD (1996-2001) and the bDMARD eras (2003-2012), with a 1-year lag period in 2002.

RESULTS

In total, 18,654 incident patients with RA were identified (mean age 57.6 years, 70.5% women). The IR of joint replacements among patients with RA was stable at 2.46 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.96, 2.96) from 1996 to 2001 but started to decrease from 2003 onwards (-0.08 per 1,000 person-years annually [95% CI -0.20, 0.02]). Compared with patients with RA, the IR among controls in 1996 was 1/17 and increased continuously throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

The IR of upper limb joint replacements started to decrease among patients with RA from 2002 onwards, whereas it increased among controls. Our results suggest an association between the introduction of bDMARDs and a lower need of joint replacements among patients with RA.

Different Original and Biosimilar TNF Inhibitors Similarly Reduce Joint Destruction in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Network Meta-Analysis of 36 Randomized Controlled Trials

The effect of five approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab) on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been compared versus methotrexate (MTX) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but have not been compared directly to each other or to an otherwise untreated placebo control. The present analysis compares effects of standard doses, high doses, and low doses of TNFis on radiographic joint destruction in RA and relate these effects to MTX and placebo by means of a Bayesian network meta-analysis. We identified 31 RCTs of the effect of TNFis on joint destruction and 5 RCTs with controls, which indirectly could link otherwise untreated placebo controls to the TNFi treatments in the network. The previously untested comparison with placebo was performed to estimate not only the effect relative to another drug, but also the absolute attainable effect. Compared to placebo there was a highly significant inhibitory effect on joint destruction of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab, which was about 0.9% per year as monotherapy and about 1.2% per year when combined with MTX. Although significantly better than MTX and placebo, golimumab seemed inferior to the remaining TNFis. There was no difference between original reference drugs (Remicade, Enbrel) and the almost identical copy drugs (biosimilars).

Impact of TNF inhibitor therapy on joint replacement rates in rheumatoid arthritis: a matched cohort analysis of BSRBR-RA UK registry data

OBJECTIVES

Previous ecological data suggest a decline in the need for joint replacements in RA patients following the introduction of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy, although patient-level data are lacking. Our primary aim was to estimate the association between TNFi use and subsequent incidence of total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement.

METHODS

A propensity score matched cohort was analysed using the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry (2001-2016) for RA data. Propensity score estimates were used to match TNFi users to similar conventional synthetic DMARD users (with replacement) using a 1:1 ratio. Weighted multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the impact of TNFi on study outcomes. Effect modification by baseline age and disease severity were investigated. Joint replacement at other sites was also analysed. An instrumental variable sensitivity analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The matched analysis contained a total of 19 116 patient records. Overall, there was no significant association between TNFi use vs conventional synthetic DMARD on rates of THR (hazard ratios = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.60, 1.22]) although there was significant effect modification by age (P < 0.001). TNFi was associated with a reduction in THR among those >60 years old (hazard ratio = 0.60 [CI: 0.41, 0.87]) but not in younger patients. No significant associations were found for total knee replacement or other joint replacement.

CONCLUSION

Overall, no association was found between the use of TNFi and subsequent incidence of joint replacement. However, TNFi was associated with a 40% relative reduction in THR rates among older patients.

Early clinical response and long-term radiographic progression in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: Clinical remission within six months remains the treatment target

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the correlation between 5-year radiographic structural disease progression and early clinical remission in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The secondary objective was to assess the correlation between erosion development in joints free of damage at baseline and early clinical remission.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was performed in 133 patients meeting ACR criteria for RA of recent onset. Two radiologists independently quantified radiographic structural lesions at the hands and forefeet using the Sharp van der Heijde (SVdH) Score at the diagnosis then 5 years later. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether the lesions were stable (SVdH Score increase ≤ 10 points, Xray-STAB group) or had worsened (SVdH Score increase > 10 points, Xray-PROG group). The clinical response was assessed after 3, 6, and 12 months. Clinical remission was defined based on the DAS28-CRP, SDAI, CDAI, and ACR/EULAR Boolean remission criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 133 patients, 90 were in the Xray-STAB group (mean SVdH score increase, 2.4 ± 2.9) and 43 in the Xray-PROG group (22.9 ± 13.4). The 6-month disease activity indices were higher in the Xray-PROG group (P < 0.05). Achieving a 6-month clinical remission had 58.6%, 39.1%, 40.0%, and 32.2% sensitivity for predicting 5-year radiographic stability when the DAS28-CRP, SDAI, CDAI, and Boolean definition were used, respectively; corresponding values for specificity were 73.8%, 85.7%, 83.7%, and 90.5%.

CONCLUSION

Achieving a clinical remission within 6 months is key to preventing radiographic structural progression in patients with recent-onset RA.

Incidence and Predictive Factors for Orthopedic Surgery in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

Objective.

To investigate the incidence of orthopedic procedures in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and how patient characteristics, time of diagnosis, and treatment affect the need for surgery.

Methods.

We reviewed the medical history of 1432 patients with possible PsA at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. There were 590 patients (mean age 49 yrs, 52% women) who had sufficient journal information and a confirmed diagnosis of PsA, and who were included in the present study. Relevant orthopedic procedures were obtained from the hospital’s administrative patient records. Survival analyses were completed to evaluate the effect of different factors such as year of diagnosis, age, sex, radiographic changes, disease activity, and treatment, on the risk of surgery.

Results.

There were 171 procedures (25% synovectomies, 15% arthrodesis, and 53% prostheses) performed on 117 patients. These factors all increased the risk of surgery: female sex [relative risk (RR) 1.9, p = 0.001], age ≥ 70 years at diagnosis (RR 2.4, p = 0.001), arthritis in initial radiographs (RR 2.2, p = 0.006), and maximum erythrocyte sedimentation rate 30–59 mm/h (RR 1.6, p = 0.026). Time period of diagnosis had no effect on the outcome. In a subanalysis of surgery exclusive of hip and knee arthroplasty, diagnosis in earlier years (1954–1985 vs 1999–2011) was a risk factor (RR 2.1, p = 0.042). Antirheumatic treatment changed significantly over time.

Conclusion.

There were 20% of patients with PsA who needed surgery. We found that the prognosis of patients with PsA did not change regarding the risk of orthopedic surgery, despite the change in treatment. A possible explanation is the increase in large joint replacements in the general population.

Distinguishing rheumatoid arthritis from psoriatic arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have key differences in clinical presentation, radiographic findings, comorbidities and pathogenesis to distinguish between these common forms of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Joint involvement is typically, but not always, asymmetric in PsA, while it is predominantly symmetric in RA. Bone erosions, without new bone growth, and cervical spine involvement are distinctive of RA, while axial spine involvement, psoriasis and nail dystrophy are distinctive of PsA. Patients with PsA typically have seronegative test findings for rheumatoid factor (RF) and cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies, while approximately 80% of patients with RA have positive findings for RF and CCP antibodies. Although there is overlap in the pathogenesis of PsA and RA, differences are also present that affect the efficacy of treatment. In PsA, levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-17, IL-22, IL-23, interferon-γ and tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) are elevated, and in RA, levels of IL-1, IL-6, IL-22, IL-33, TNF-α, chemokine ligand 11 and chemokine C-X-C motif ligand 13 are elevated. Differences in the pathogenesis of RA and PsA translate into some variances in the specificity and efficacy of therapies.

Long-term treatment with low dose glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: New tricks of an old drug

Glucocorticoids (GC) have been used for more than 70 years in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The immediate improvement of the clinical picture is one of their main advantages. However, RA is a chronic disease and unfortunately, long-term GC administration is associated with several serious adverse events. This is the major reason why GC therapy should be administered for the shortest possible period of time, with tapering as far as it is feasible. Although this is accepted as a “dogma”, there is recently growing evidence suggesting that low doses, even in the long-term, might not be as dangerous as previously believed. On the contrary, GC may be beneficial for RA patients in several ways, considering their protective role in radiographic progression or lymphoma development.

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.

Use of Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Inflammatory Arthritis in US Veterans: Effect of Specialty Care and Geographic Distance

Objective.

To evaluate the effect of access to and distance from rheumatology care on the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in US veterans with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

Methods.

Provider encounters and DMARD dispensations for IA (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis) were evaluated in national Veterans Affairs (VA) datasets between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

Results.

Among 12,589 veterans with IA, 23.5% saw a rheumatology provider. In the general IA population, 25.3% and 13.6% of veterans were exposed to a synthetic DMARD (sDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), respectively. DMARD exposure was 2.6- to 3.4-fold higher in the subpopulation using rheumatology providers, compared to the general IA population. The distance between veterans’ homes and the closest VA rheumatology site was < 40 miles (Near) for 55.9%, 40–99 miles (Intermediate) for 31.7%, and ≥ 100 miles (Far) for 12.4%. Veterans in the Intermediate and Far groups were less likely to see a rheumatology provider than veterans in the Near group (RR = 0.72 and RR = 0.49, respectively). Exposure to bDMARD was 34% less frequent in the Far group than the Near group. In the subpopulation who used rheumatology care, the bDMARD exposure discrepancy did not persist between distance groups.

Conclusion.

Use of rheumatology care and DMARD was low for veterans with IA. DMARD exposure was strongly associated with rheumatology care use. Veterans in the general IA population living far from rheumatology sites accessed rheumatology care and bDMARD less frequently than veterans living close to rheumatology sites.

Effect of Glucocorticoids on the Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Tofacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Posthoc Analysis of Data from 6 Phase III Studies

Objective.

Tofacitinib has been investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in phase III studies in which concomitant glucocorticoids (GC) were allowed. We analyzed the effect of GC use on efficacy outcomes in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib and/or methotrexate (MTX) or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in these studies.

Methods.

Our posthoc analysis included data from 6 phase III studies (NCT01039688; NCT00814307; NCT00847613; NCT00853385; NCT00856544; NCT00960440). MTX-naive patients or patients with inadequate response to csDMARD or biological DMARD received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily alone or with csDMARD, with or without concomitant GC. Patients receiving GC (≤ 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) before enrollment maintained a stable dose throughout. Endpoints included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates, rates of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) and remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), and changes from baseline in CDAI, 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28-4)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain visual analog scale (VAS), and modified total Sharp score.

Results.

Of 3200 tofacitinib-treated patients, 1258 (39.3%) received tofacitinib monotherapy and 1942 (60.7%) received tofacitinib plus csDMARD; 1767 (55.2%) received concomitant GC. ACR20/50/70 response rates, rates of CDAI LDA and remission, and improvements in CDAI, DAS28-4-ESR, HAQ-DI, and pain VAS with tofacitinib were generally similar with or without GC in monotherapy and combination therapy studies. GC use did not appear to affect radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated MTX-naive patients. MTX plus GC appeared to inhibit radiographic progression to a numerically greater degree than MTX alone.

Conclusion.

Concomitant use of GC with tofacitinib did not appear to affect clinical or radiographic efficacy. MTX plus GC showed a trend to inhibit radiographic progression to a greater degree than MTX alone.

Comparative efficacy of biological agents in methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis patients: a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Biological agents (biologics) targeting proinflammatory signaling have emerged as an important treatment option in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the clinical effectiveness of biologics for patients with RA who do not respond to 'traditional' disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), there are concerns regarding their cost and long-term safety. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of various biologics and traditional DMARDs in RA patients refractory to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

Four DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, MTX, lef lunomide) and five anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, inf liximab, and certolizumab) were selected. A systematic search of published studies was performed from inception through July 2013. Randomized trials of adults with MTX-refractory RA comparing two or more of the selected medications were included. Among 7,938 titles identified, in total, 16 head-to-head trials were selected. Two reviewers independently abstracted the study data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias. Comparative efficacy was analyzed using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

In total, 9, 4, and 11 studies were included for the outcome measures of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) < 2.6 (remission), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response, respectively. The treatments with the highest efficacy for each outcome measure were certolizumab combined with MTX, golimumab combined with MTX, and certolizumab combined with MTX, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on MTC analysis, using data from published randomized controlled trials, certolizumab and golimumab combined with MTX showed the highest efficacy in the three outcome measures (HAQ, DAS28-ESR < 2.6, and ACR 70 response) in MTX-refractory RA patients.

FGF21 exerts comparable pharmacological efficacy with Adalimumab in ameliorating collagen-induced rheumatoid arthritis by regulating systematic inflammatory response

Previous studies have reported that Fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) can regulate inflammation and may play an important role in inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases, such as autoimmune diseases. Adalimumab is one of the clinically effective anti-rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drugs. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of FGF21 and Adalimumab on collagen-induced arthritis (CIA) model mice. Mice with CIA were subcutaneously treated with FGF21 or Adalimumab at dose of 1mgkg^-1d^-1, respectively. Our results showed that FGF21 significantly alleviated the severity of arthritis by reducing cellular immune responses and exerted the similar anti-inflammatory effects with Adalimumab in decreasing the mRNA and protein expression levels of IL-2, IL-6 and IL-17. However, the expression levels of IL-1β, RANKL and IL-10 in the mice treated with FGF21 were decreased 2.2-fold, 2.5-fold and increased 4.3-fold compared with Adalimumab, respectively. However, the levels of TNF-α in the mice treated with Adalimumab were lower than those in the mice treated with FGF21. Western blotting results demonstrated that FGF21 displayed equivalent effects with Adalimumab by inhibiting NF-κB/IκBα signaling pathway. However, FGF21 could also regulate systematic inflammatory response and the mechanism maybe related to other signal pathway. In summary, FGF21 exerts comparable pharmacological efficacy with Adalimumab by regulating systematic inflammatory response, providing that FGF21 may be a promising therapeutic agent for RA patients.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.

METHODS

We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

MAIN RESULTS

158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Remission-induction therapies for early rheumatoid arthritis: evidence to date and clinical implications

Recent guidelines on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) point to the importance of achieving remission as soon as possible during the course of the disease. The appropriate use of antirheumatic drugs is critical, particularly in early RA patients, before 24 weeks, since this is a 'window of opportunity' for treatment to modify disease progression. A treat-to-target strategy added to an aggressive therapeutic approach increases the chance of early remission, particularly in early RA patients. We conducted an overview of current therapeutic strategies leading to remission in early RA patients. We also provide interesting predictive factors that can guide the RA management strategy with regard to disease-modifying treatment and/or drug-free remission.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.

DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA SOURCES

Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.

MAIN OUTCOMES

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.

RESULTS

158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

One-year maintenance with routine assessment of patient index data 3-based remission may inhibit radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with routine clinical therapy: A retrospective comparison of radiographic outcome and its prognostic factors between maintained remissions with patient-reported outcome index and physician-oriented disease activity indices

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether the maintenance of routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3) remission for one year (RAPID3-MR) may predict good radiographic outcomes. We also compared radiographic progression to prognostic factors among patients with RAPID3-MR, with the maintenance of clinical disease activity index remission for one year (CDAI-MR) or with the maintenance of 28 joint count disease activity score remission for one year (DAS28-MR).

METHODS

Of 1220 patients with available clinical data, 92 with RAPID3-MR, 80 with RAPID3-NMR (not satisfying RAPID3-MR), 45 with CDAI-MR, and 75 with DAS28-MR were retrospectively investigated. CDAI and DAS28 for clinical outcomes and the modified total Sharp score (mTSS) for radiographic joint damage were investigated for at least one year.

RESULTS

RAPID3, CDAI, DAS28, and their categories remained unchanged or significantly improved in RAPID3-MR patients but significantly deteriorated in RAPID3-NMR patients. The mean annual ΔmTSS was significantly lower in RAPID3-MR patients (0.12 ± 0.55) than in RAPID3-NMR patients (0.54 ± 1.27) (p = 0.025). There was no significant difference among RAPID3-MR patients, CDAI-MR patients (0.06 ± 0.85), and DAS28-MR patients (0.11 ± 0.89). The baseline mTSS (p = 0.038) and monotherapy with nonbiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (p = 0.033) were good prognostic factors in RAPID3-MR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year RAPID3 remission maintenance may predict good radiographic outcomes.

Combination Therapy With and Without Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

The costs of biologic treatment per patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are approximately 100 times the costs of treatment with a combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Despite this, biologic agents have not been proven superior. We compared the effects of combination DMARD therapies with and without biologic agents as therapy for patients with RA.

METHODS

Eight randomized controlled trials published in 10 articles were selected from a systematic literature search of 1,674 identified studies and integrated in a meta-analysis. These trials compared combinations of DMARDs versus a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor plus methotrexate. Two reviewers independently entered data into standardized extraction forms. The combined effect measures were compared by means of the inverse variance method (continuous data) and the Mantel-Haenszel method (dichotomous data) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The primary outcome, radiographic progression score, did not differ between the combination DMARD group and the TNF inhibitor group, neither during the second year (-0.09 units [-0.61, 0.44]) of treatment or during the first 2 years (0.66 units [-0.12, 1.43]). There were significant differences in the radiographic progression score, the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 50% improvement (ACR50), and the ACR70 response criteria at 6 months in favor of TNF inhibitor treatment, but these differences were not present in patients treated with an initial steroid course and disappeared at 24 months, irrespective of the use of steroids.

CONCLUSION

The difference between DMARD combination treatments, including or excluding TNF inhibitors, is small. Due to the enormous cost differences, RA guidelines should recommend combination DMARD treatment before initiation of TNF inhibitors.

Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of adalimumab and etanercept is a cost-effective strategy compared with non-tapering tight control rheumatoid arthritis care: analyses of the DRESS study

Background

A disease activity-guided dose optimisation strategy of adalimumab or etanercept (TNFi (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors)) has shown to be non-inferior in maintaining disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with usual care. However, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is still unknown.

Method

This is a preplanned cost-effectiveness analysis of the Dose REduction Strategy of Subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (DRESS) study, a randomised controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial performed in two Dutch rheumatology outpatient clinics. Patients with low disease activity using TNF inhibitors were included. Total healthcare costs were measured and quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on EQ5D utility scores. Decremental cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using bootstrap analyses; incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) was used to express cost-effectiveness.

Results

180 patients were included, and 121 were allocated to the dose optimisation strategy and 59 to control. The dose optimisation strategy resulted in a mean cost saving of −€12 280 (95 percentile −€10 502; −€14 104) per patient per 18 months. There is an 84% chance that the dose optimisation strategy results in a QALY loss with a mean QALY loss of −0.02 (−0.07 to 0.02). The decremental cost-effectiveness ratio (DCER) was €390 493 (€5 085 184; dominant) of savings per QALY lost. The mean iNMB was €10 467 (€6553–€14 037). Sensitivity analyses using 30% and 50% lower prices for TNFi remained cost-effective.

Conclusions

Disease activity-guided dose optimisation of TNFi results in considerable cost savings while no relevant loss of quality of life was observed. When the minimal QALY loss is compensated with the upper limit of what society is willing to pay or accept in the Netherlands, the net savings are still high.

Trial registration number

NTR3216; Post-results.

Making smart investment decisions in clinical research

A recent trial in rheumatoid arthritis found an inexpensive, but infrequently used, combination of therapies is neither inferior nor less safe than an expensive biologic drug. If the trial had been conducted over 10 years ago, arguably 100’s of millions of dollars since spent on biologics could have been released to other, more effective treatments. Given the ever increasing number of trials proposed, this commentary uses the trial as an example to challenge payers and research funders to make smarter investments in clinical research to save potential future costs.

Trial registration: NCT00405275, registered 29 November 2006

The inhibitory effects of a RANKL-binding peptide on articular and periarticular bone loss in a murine model of collagen-induced arthritis: a bone histomorphometric study

INTRODUCTION

We designed OP3-4 (YCEIEFCYLIR), a cyclic peptide, to mimic the soluble osteoprotegerin (OPG), and was proven to bind to RANKL (receptor activator of NF-κB ligand), thereby inhibiting osteoclastogenesis. We recently found that another RANKL binding peptide, W9, could accelerate bone formation by affecting RANKL signaling in osteoblasts. We herein demonstrate the effects of OP3-4 on bone formation and bone loss in a murine model of rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Twenty-four seven-week-old male DBA/1J mice were used to generate a murine model of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA). Then, vehicle or OP3-4 (9 mg/kg/day or 18 mg/kg/day) was subcutaneously infused using infusion pumps for three weeks beginning seven days after the second immunization. The arthritis score was assessed, and the mice were sacrificed on day 49. Thereafter, radiographic, histological and biochemical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The OP3-4 treatment did not significantly inhibit the CIA-induced arthritis, but limited bone loss. Micro-CT images and quantitative measurements of the bone mineral density revealed that 18 mg/kg/day OP3-4 prevented the CIA-induced bone loss at both articular and periarticular sites of tibiae. As expected, OP3-4 significantly reduced the CIA-induced serum CTX levels, a marker of bone resorption. Interestingly, the bone histomorphometric analyses using undecalcified sections showed that OP3-4 prevented the CIA-induced reduction of bone formation-related parameters at the periarticular sites.

CONCLUSION

The peptide that mimicked OPG prevented inflammatory bone loss by inhibiting bone resorption and stimulating bone formation. It could therefore be a useful template for the development of small molecule drugs for inflammatory bone loss.

Radiographic Structural Damage Is Worse in the Dominant than the Non-Dominant Hand in Individuals with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

The relationship between mechanical stress and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is unclear. The assumption is that mechanical stress is greater in the dominant hand. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the presence and progression of erosions and joint space narrowing (JSN) in the dominant and non-dominant hand.

Methods

Data from 194 patients recently diagnosed with seropositive RA, and with hand radiographs taken at the time of diagnosis and at 2-year follow-up, were analyzed retrospectively. Radiographs were scored using the van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score (HSS) method. Each joint group within each hand was rated separately by two independent examiners in a double-blinded manner.

Results

One hundred and ninety-four patients were enrolled (80% female, 88% positive rheumatoid factor, 92% positive anti-citrullinated protein antibody, and 95.4% right-handed). The baseline, follow-up erosion and JSN HSS were significantly higher in the dominant hand than in the non-dominant hand. The annual rate of radiographic progression was also higher in the dominant hand. The erosive progression in the wrist joints varied significantly according to handedness, but the erosion in the proximal interphalangeal joints and metacarpophalangeal joints was similar in both hands. The radiographic progression was associated with the dominant hand, an abnormal baseline C-reactive protein level, and joint damage at baseline. There was no significant difference in bone mineral density between the right and left hands.

Conclusion

Radiological damage was worse and progressed faster in the dominant hand, suggesting that mechanical stress is associated with radiographic joint damage in early and active RA.

Can the publication of guidelines change the management of early rheumatoid arthritis? An interrupted time series analysis from the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether publication of national treatment guidelines improved the management of early RA in the UK.

METHODS

Incident diagnoses of RA in persons aged over 18 years from 1995 to 2010 were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using a natural experimental study design, interrupted time series analysis was used to assess whether trends in the proportion of patients receiving DMARDs, within 3 and 12 months of diagnosis, changed following publication of British Society for Rheumatology guidelines in 2006.

RESULTS

Between 1995 and 2010, 11 772 incident cases of RA were identified. There was a progressive increase in the proportion of patients prescribed any DMARD within 12 months from 43.3% in 1995 to 78.5% in 2010. After publication of the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines, the proportion of patients prescribed any DMARD within 12 months increased by 4.2% (P = 0.053). Prior to the guidance, prescribing was increasing by 1.64% per year, compared with 3.55% per year after publication (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Guidelines published by a national body can improve the proportion of patients receiving DMARD treatment in the first year after diagnosis of RA.

Disease activity guided dose reduction and withdrawal of adalimumab or etanercept compared with usual care in rheumatoid arthritis: open label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a disease activity guided strategy of dose reduction of two tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, adalimumab or etanercept, is non-inferior in maintaining disease control in patients with rheumatoid arthritis compared with usual care.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled, open label, non-inferiority strategy trial.

SETTING

Two rheumatology outpatient clinics in the Netherlands, from December 2011 to May 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

180 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and low disease activity using adalimumab or etanercept; 121 allocated to the dose reduction strategy, 59 to usual care.

INTERVENTIONS

Disease activity guided dose reduction (advice to stepwise increase the injection interval every three months, until flare of disease activity or discontinuation) or usual care (no dose reduction advice). Flare was defined as increase in DAS28-CRP (a composite score measuring disease activity) greater than 1.2, or increase greater than 0.6 and current score of at least 3.2. In the case of flare, TNF inhibitor use was restarted or escalated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Difference in proportions of patients with major flare (DAS28-CRP based flare longer than three months) between the two groups at 18 months, compared against a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Secondary outcomes included TNF inhibitor use at study end, functioning, quality of life, radiographic progression, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Dose reduction of adalimumab or etanercept was non-inferior to usual care (proportion of patients with major flare at 18 months, 12% v 10%; difference 2%, 95% confidence interval -12% to 12%). In the dose reduction group, TNF inhibitor use could successfully be stopped in 20% (95% confidence interval 13% to 28%), the injection interval successfully increased in 43% (34% to 53%), but no dose reduction was possible in 37% (28% to 46%). Functional status, quality of life, relevant radiographic progression, and adverse events did not differ between the groups, although short lived flares (73% v 27%) and minimal radiographic progression (32% v 15%) were more frequent in dose reduction than usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

A disease activity guided, dose reduction strategy of adalimumab or etanercept to treat rheumatoid arthritis is non-inferior to usual care with regard to major flaring, while resulting in the successful dose reduction or stopping in two thirds of patients.Trial registration Dutch trial register (www.trialregister.nl), NTR 3216.

Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors versus combination intensive therapy with conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: TACIT non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intensive combinations of synthetic disease modifying drugs can achieve similar clinical benefits at lower costs to high cost biologics such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis resistant to initial methotrexate and other synthetic disease modifying drugs.

DESIGN

Open label pragmatic randomised multicentre two arm non-inferiority trial over 12 months.

SETTING

24 rheumatology clinics in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were eligible for treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors according to current English guidance were randomised to either the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy or the combined disease modifying drug strategy.

INTERVENTIONS

Biologic strategy: start tumour necrosis factor inhibitor; second biologic in six month for non-responders. Alternative strategy: start combination of disease modifying drugs; start tumour necrosis factor inhibitors after six months in non-responders.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

reduction in disability at 12 months measured with patient recorded heath assessment questionnaire (range 0.00-3.00) with a 0.22 non-inferiority margin for combination treatment versus the biologic strategy.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

quality of life, joint damage, disease activity, adverse events, and costs. Intention to treat analysis used multiple imputation methods for missing data.

RESULTS

432 patients were screened: 107 were randomised to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and 101 started taking; 107 were randomised to the combined drug strategy and 104 started taking the drugs. Initial assessments were similar; 16 patients were lost to follow-up (seven with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy, nine with the combined drug strategy); 42 discontinued the intervention but were followed-up (19 and 23, respectively). The primary outcome showed mean falls in scores on the health assessment questionnaire of -0.30 with the tumour necrosis factor inhibitor strategy and -0.45 with the alternative combined drug strategy. The difference between groups in unadjusted linear regression analysis favoured the alternative strategy of combined drugs. The mean difference was -0.14, and the 95% confidence interval (-0.29 to 0.01) was below the prespecified non-inferiority boundary of 0.22. Improvements at 12 months in secondary outcomes, including quality of life and erosive progression, were similar with both strategies. Initial reductions in disease activity were greater with the biologic strategy, but these differences did not persist beyond six months. Remission was seen in 72 patients (44 with biologic strategy; 36 with alternative strategy); 28 patients had serious adverse events (18 and 10, respectively); six and 10 patients, respectively, stopped treatment because of toxicity. The alternative strategy reduced health and social care costs per patient by £3615 (€4930, $5585) for months 0-6 and £1930 for months 6-12.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who meet English criteria for biologics an alternative strategy with combinations of intensive synthetic disease modifying drugs gives non-inferior outcomes to treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. Costs are reduced substantially.Trial Registration ISRCTN 37438295.

Oral low-dose glucocorticoids should be included in any recommendation for the use of non-biologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

At present, growing scientific evidence from the medical literature and expert opinion provides strong consideration for a mandatory role of glucocorticoids (GCs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Earlier application strategies were based on initial high doses, with subsequent tapering schedules, resulting in dose-related side effects. Recent low-dose GC schemes are more feasible in routine care, while providing evidence of clinical, functional and structural efficacy. Thus, initial low-dose GC 'bridging' treatment on a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug background should be included in any existing recommendations for RA management, as very recently advocated by the EULAR Task Force 2013 updated guidelines. Long-term low-dose therapy appears to provide acceptable safety, leading to long-standing slowing of structural damage, seen even after GC therapy withdrawal. Gaps in knowledge about the optimal method to taper and possibly discontinue GC treatment remain, and this topic should be addressed in clinical trials and observational studies. Recent efforts in GC medication have also included the introduction of a modified-release drug formulation capable of drug delivery consistent with chronobiological pathogenetic rhythms of disease, which has been quite efficacious in controlling the signs and symptoms related to pathways of circadian cytokines. Long-term data will further clarify the add-on benefits of such modified-release formulations.

Methotrexate in combination with other DMARDs is not superior to methotrexate alone for remission induction with moderate-to-high-dose glucocorticoid bridging in early rheumatoid arthritis after 16 weeks of treatment: the CareRA trial

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of intensive combination strategies with glucocorticoids (GCs) in the first 16 weeks (W) of early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) treatment, focusing on high-risk patients, in the Care in early RA trial.

Methods

400 disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA were recruited and stratified into high risk or low risk according to classical prognostic markers. High-risk patients (n=290) were randomised to 1/3 treatment strategies: combination therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA) Classic (methotrexate (MTX)+ sulfasalazine+60 mg prednisone tapered to 7.5 mg daily from W7), COBRA Slim (MTX+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6) and COBRA Avant-Garde (MTX+leflunomide+30 mg prednisone tapered to 5 mg from W6). Treatment modifications to target low-disease activity were mandatory from W8, if desirable and feasible according to the rheumatologist. The primary outcome was remission (28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein <2.6) at W16 (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints were good European League Against Rheumatism response, clinically meaningful health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) response and HAQ equal to zero. Adverse events (AEs) were registered.

Results

Data from 98 Classic, 98 Slim and 94 Avant-Garde patients were analysed. At W16, remission was reached in 70.4% Classic, 73.6% Slim and 68.1% Avant-Garde patients (p=0.713). Likewise, no significant differences were shown in other secondary endpoints. However, therapy-related AEs were reported in 61.2% of Classic, in 46.9% of Slim and in 69.1% of Avant-Garde patients (p=0.006).

Conclusions

For high-risk eRA, MTX associated with a moderate step-down dose of GCs was as effective in inducing remission at W16 as DMARD combination therapies with moderate or high step-down GC doses and it showed a more favourable short-term safety profile.

EudraCT number:

2008-007225-39.

Effect of combination therapy on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods and Findings

The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989–2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.42, −0.22); triple DMARD: −0.46 SMD (CI: −0.60, −0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: −0.30 SMD (CI: −0.36, −0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: −0.20 SMD (CI: −0.33, −0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: −0.34 SMD (CI: −0.48, −0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.40, −0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (−0.26 SMD (CI: −0.45, −0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (−0.16 SMD (CI: −0.31, −0.01)).

Conclusion

Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2–3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.

Adding a "GRADE" to the quality appraisal of rheumatoid arthritis guidelines identifies limitations beyond AGREE-II

OBJECTIVES

To assess how well treatment recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) address Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) steps and determine whether these steps can be adequately appraised using Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation II (AGREE-II).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically reviewed English-language treatment recommendations for the pharmacologic management of RA since 2000, assessed how well GRADE steps were addressed, rated AGREE-II quality, and compared the findings.

RESULTS

GRADE steps were poorly addressed by the 44 included guidelines. Few guidelines discussed study limitations and/or risk of bias (23%), inconsistency (50%), indirectness (39%), imprecision (23%), or potential for publication bias (0%). Observational evidence was cited in 96% but rarely evaluated systematically. Only one guideline considered evidence on patients' preferences for health outcomes, and few provided an explicit justification for the strength of evidence or recommendation. The five GRADE steps that overlapped with AGREE-II questions were addressed more frequently (by 54-100% of guidelines) than the 13 GRADE steps not directly assessed by AGREE-II (0-50%). Among the nine guidelines rated as "Recommended for use" by AGREE-II, 8 of 13 GRADE steps were not addressed consistently by any guideline.

CONCLUSION

GRADE's steps are poorly addressed by RA recommendations. AGREE-II provides a broad assessment of quality but lacks sufficient granularity to assess how well a guideline addresses GRADE's steps.

The "dirty little secret" exposed in the 2013 EULAR recommendations for rheumatoid arthritis therapy

The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recently updated its recommendations on the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), motivated by the availability of new treatment options over the past 3 or 4 years. Modifications since 2010 include the removal of the recommendation of the use of azathioprine, cyclosporine A, or cyclophosphamide for the treatment of RA. Furthermore, there is no longer an expressed preference for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, including the approved biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, over abatacept (a co-stimulatory blocker), tocilizumab (an interleukin-6 inhibitor), or rituximab (a B-cell antibody) when conventional DMARDs are not sufficiently effective. However, the use of tofacitinib (a Janus-associated kinase inhibitor) should come after initial biologic treatment has failed, due to uncertainty about the long-term safety and cost considerations of tofacitinib in comparison to biologic DMARDs. It was recommended that DMARD-naive patients be treated with either conventional DMARD monotherapy or DMARD combination therapy up front, and that low-dose glucocorticoids "should be considered" as a part of the initial treatment strategy, with glucocorticoids tapered within 6 months. Because glucocorticoids have been reported to retard joint damage and have been associated with negligible adverse events at low doses, perhaps the 2013 EULAR recommendation did not go far enough in its support of low-dose glucocorticoid use. Almost 60 years have passed since the initial discovery of glucocorticoid efficacy in the treatment of RA, and despite the flurry of new and exciting medications for the treatment of RA, we still have not come to a consensus on how the first effective, and now the least expensive, RA therapy should be used.