The updated BSR guidelines for anti-TNF in adults with RA: what has changed and why?

Assessment of anti-TNF-alpha efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis: is 3 months sufficient?

OBJECTIVES

The optimal therapeutic trial duration of anti-TNF-alpha therapy is currently unknown. The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guidance states that non-response at 3 months warrants re-evaluation of treatment and recommends not to persist beyond 6 months. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) specifies treatment continuation if response is achieved by 6 months, yet the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) maintain a 3 month cut-off. No evidence exists to support a 6 month therapeutic trial over 3 months. Thus, we undertook a study to evaluate the proportion of patients who failed to meet NICE response criteria at 3 months but obtained this by 6 months, and to identify predictive factors for this.

METHODS

Patients who commenced anti-TNF-alpha therapy for RA were studied, counting those who switched to a second or third agent separately for each instigation of therapy (n = 244). Response at 3 and 6 months was defined according to NICE criteria as a >or=1.2 reduction in Disease Activity Score (DAS28).

RESULTS

Of the 189 patients with available 3 month DAS28 responses, 149 fulfilled response criteria. Of the 40 who failed, 27 continued treatment, of whom 21 were available for follow-up at 6 months. Out of the 21 patients, 12 (57%; 95% CI 36, 78) achieved a response at this time. This data set was too small to investigate predictors of response at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients who fail NICE response criteria at 3 months and continue on treatment to 6 months achieve a response. These results support a 6 month therapeutic trial over 3 months.

The impact of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis on the use of other drugs and hospital resources in a pragmatic setting

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy has been an important development for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the impact of its delivery on hospital resources in still emerging.

AIMS

We audited the effect of starting anti-TNF on the use of other anti-rheumatic therapies and hospital resources in a routine secondary care setting.

METHODS

A retrospective study of resource use before and after anti-TNF was conducted. Hospital records of 54 RA patients were studied and data taken from the time of commencing anti-TNF to 1 October 2004 and an equal time period prior to commencing anti-TNF. Identical data were collected for 54 controls not on anti-TNF. Relevant figures were extrapolated to per annum rates. Results were analysed using two-factor ANOVAs comparing the pre- versus post-anti-TNF period. Cases on intravenous (IV) versus subcutaneous (SC) anti-TNF were also compared in separate ANOVAs.

RESULTS

Mean duration of anti-TNF therapy was 17.04 months (range 3.60-42.36). Mean pre- and 3-months post-anti-TNF Disease Activity Scores (DAS28) were 6.93 and 3.88, respectively. Cases were more likely than controls to be on oral prednisolone pre- and post-anti-TNF. Methylprednisolone requirement, number of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), telephone helpline contacts and duration as an inpatient reduced significantly post-anti-TNF. Day case admissions increased but outpatient appointments decreased only in cases on IV anti-TNF.

CONCLUSIONS

In a pragmatic setting, anti-TNF therapy led to reduced need for steroid injections and other DMARDs, as well as reductions in use of several hospital resources. Wider replication of these findings will be important for planning delivery.