German guidelines for the sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

The universal presence of poor prognostic factors based on EULAR recommendations: A real-world study in 1164 Chinese RA patients

INTRODUCTION

Poor prognostic factors (PPFs) have been used in assisting therapeutic decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There are no standard lists of PPFs for RA, and whether PPFs can guide RA treatment remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the profile of PPF based on EULAR recommendations in RA patients and explore the necessity of considering these PPFs in adjusting therapy.

METHODS

Prognostic factors including erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA), swollen joint count (SJC), early erosions, and response to first conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) therapy in 1164 RA patients were collected. The profile of PPFs was graphically displayed. The correlation between different PPFs was analyzed.

RESULTS

Elevated ESR/CRP was presented in 746 (64%) patients, and positive RF/ACPA in 1021 (88%) patients. Two hundred and sixty-eight (23%) patients had≥4 swollen joints. Three hundred (26%) patients had moderate or high disease activity (MDA/HDA) despite csDMARD therapy. Failure of≥2 csDMARDs was found in 30% (224/740) of patients. One hundred and fifty-three out of 459 (33%) patients had early bone erosions, usually coexisted with other PPFs. Ninety-seven percent of RA patients had≥1 PPF. Being MDA/HDA≥3 months was significantly correlated with elevated ESR/CRP or high SJC, however uncorrelated with RF/ACPA positivity or early erosions.

CONCLUSIONS

PPFs are universally present in RA patients. The reasonability of guiding treatment strategies just based on the presence or absence of PPFs requires further investigation. The categories of PPFs can be simplified and the role of different PPFs combinations in guiding treatment needs to be explored.

Cancer molecular biology and strategies for the design of cytotoxic gold(I) and gold(III) complexes: a tutorial review

This tutorial review highlights key principles underpinning the design of selected metallodrugs to target specific biological macromolecules (DNA and proteins). The review commences with a descriptive overview of the eukaryotic cell cycle and the molecular biology of cancer, particularly apoptosis, which is provided as a necessary foundation for the discovery, design, and targeting of metal-based anticancer agents. Drugs which target DNA have been highlighted and clinically approved metallodrugs discussed. A brief history of the development of mainly gold-based metallodrugs is presented prior to addressing ligand systems for stabilizing and adding functionality to bio-active gold(I) and gold(III) complexes, particularly in the burgeoning field of anticancer metallodrugs. Concepts such as multi-modal and selective cytotoxic agents are covered where necessary for selected compounds. The emerging role of carbenes as the ligand system of choice to achieve these goals for gold-based metallodrug candidates is highlighted prior to closing the review with comments on some future directions that this research field might follow. The latter section ultimately emphasizes the importance of understanding the fate of metal complexes in cells to garner key mechanistic insights.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

A multidisciplinary guideline development group was established to formulate this evidence-based diagnosis and treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in China. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, which were derived from research articles and guided by the analysis of the benefits and harms as well as patients' values and preferences. A total of 10 recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of RA were developed. This new guideline covered the classification criteria, disease activity assessment and monitoring, and the role of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics, small molecule synthetic targeting drugs, and glucocorticoids in the treat-to-target approach of RA. This guideline is intended to serve as a tool for clinicians and patients to implement decision-making strategies and improve the practices of RA management in China.

Variability in Glucocorticoid Prescribing for Rheumatoid Arthritis and the Influence of Provider Preference on Long-Term Use of Glucocorticoids

OBJECTIVE

Glucocorticoids are recommended for short-term use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but many patients continue receiving long-term therapy. We evaluated the variability in glucocorticoid prescribing across rheumatologists to inform interventions to limit long-term glucocorticoid use to the lowest dose necessary.

METHODS

Two cohorts were created using Medicare data from 2006 to 2015. Using cohort 1 (RA patients receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs]), we calculated each rheumatologist's "provider preference" for glucocorticoids (frequency of use compared to other providers), using the ratio of observed to expected number of patients receiving glucocorticoids to account for case mix. In cohort 2 (RA patients receiving stable DMARD therapy), we evaluated whether provider preference for glucocorticoids could independently predict use of ≥5 mg/day of glucocorticoids 6-9 months after initiation of DMARD therapy.

RESULTS

Using cohort 1 (1,272,644 yearly observations; 385,597 patients), we calculated provider preference among 6,875 rheumatologists (28,936 yearly observations). Provider preference was highly variable, with physicians at the lowest and upper quartiles prescribing glucocorticoids 33% less often to 31% more often (25th and 75th percentiles, respectively) than expected. In cohort 2 (155,539 patients receiving stable DMARD therapy), provider preference was strongly associated with glucocorticoid use ≥5 mg/day at 6-9 months, with a predicted probability of use of 22% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 21.7-22.7) versus 11% (95% CI 10.2-10.9) for a patient seeing a provider in the highest versus lowest quintile of preference.

CONCLUSION

Glucocorticoid prescribing for RA varies greatly among rheumatologists, and provider preference is one of the strongest predictors of a patient's long-term glucocorticoid use. These findings raise quality of care concerns and highlight the need for stronger evidence to guide RA treatment.

Systematic Review of Recommendations on the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate consensus recommendations regarding management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases, guideline registries, and relevant web sites for cancer-specific recommendations on RA management. Reviewers independently selected and appraised the recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. We identified similarities and discrepancies among recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 4,077 unique citations, 39 recommendations were identified, of which half described their consensus process. Average scores for the AGREE II domains ranged from 33% to 87%. Cancer risk in RA was addressed in 79% of recommendations, with acknowledgement of increased overall cancer risk. Recommendations did not agree on the safety of using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients with cancer, except for the contraindication of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients at risk for lymphoma. Most recommendations agreed that RA treatment should be stopped and re-evaluated with a new diagnosis of cancer. Recommendations for patients with a history of cancer differed depending on the drug, cancer type, and time since cancer diagnosis. Few recommendations addressed all issues.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for the treatment of RA in patients with cancer often fail to meet expected methodologic criteria. There was agreement on the need for caution when prescribing DMARDs to these patients. However, several areas continue to lack consensus, and given the paucity of evidence, there is an urgent need for research and expert opinion to guide and standardize the management of RA in patients with cancer.

Translating IL-6 biology into effective treatments

In 1973, IL-6 was identified as a soluble factor that is secreted by T cells and is important for antibody production by B cells. Since its discovery more than 40 years ago, the IL-6 pathway has emerged as a pivotal pathway involved in immune regulation in health and dysregulation in many diseases. Targeting of the IL-6 pathway has led to innovative therapeutic approaches for various rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, giant cell arteritis and Takayasu arteritis, as well as other conditions such as Castleman disease and cytokine release syndrome. Targeting this pathway has also identified avenues for potential expansion into several other indications, such as uveitis, neuromyelitis optica and, most recently, COVID-19 pneumonia. To mark the tenth anniversary of anti-IL-6 receptor therapy worldwide, we discuss the history of research into IL-6 biology and the development of therapies that target IL-6 signalling, including the successes and challenges and with an emphasis on rheumatic diseases.

In this Perspective article, the authors recount the earliest stages of translational research into IL-6 biology and the subsequent development of therapeutic IL-6 pathway inhibitors for the treatment of autoimmune rheumatic diseases and potentially numerous other indications.

Singapore Chapter of Rheumatologists updated consensus statement on the eligibility for government subsidization of biologic and targeted-synthetic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) respond inadequately to conventional-synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). However, widespread use of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted-synthetic (tsDMARDs) is limited by cost. We formulated updated recommendations for eligibility criteria for government-assisted funding of bDMARDs/tsDMARDs for RA patients in Singapore.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Published guidelines regarding use of bDMARD and tsDMARDs were reviewed. We excluded those without a systematic literature review, formal consensus process or evidence grading. Separately, unpublished national reimbursement guidelines were included.

RESULTS

Eleven recommendations regarding choice of disease activity measure, initiation, order of selection and continuation of bDMARD/tsDMARDs were formulated. A bDMARD/tsDMARD is indicated if a patient has: (a) at least moderately active RA with a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score of ≥3.2; (b) failed ≥2 csDMARD strategies, 1 of which must be a combination; (c) received an adequate dose regimen of ≥3 months for each strategy. For the first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, either tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab), or tsDMARDs, may be considered. If a first-line TNFi fails, options include another TNFi, non-TNFi biologic or tsDMARDs. If a first-line non-TNFi biologic or tsDMARD fails, options include TNFi or another non-TNF biologic or tsDMARD. For continued bDMARD/tsDMARD subsidization, a patient must have a documented DAS28-ESR every 3 months and at least a moderate European League Against Rheumatism response by 6 months.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations are useful for guiding funding decisions, making bDMARD/tsDMARDs usage accessible and equitable in RA patients who fail csDMARDs.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in Austrian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the 2-year ACTION study

BACKGROUND

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was a 2-year international observational study of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, abatacept retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the Austrian cohort of ACTION.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients enrolled in Austria, 98 (98.0%) were evaluable: 33/98 (33.7%) biologic naïve and 65/98 (66.3%) with ≥1 prior biologic failure. At baseline, biologic-naïve patients had shorter disease duration and lower concomitant corticosteroid use than biologic-failure patients. Overall crude abatacept retention rate was 60.5% and retention rate was higher in biologic-naïve (65.1%) versus biologic-failure (58.0%) patients. Good/moderate EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response rates were 85.7% in biologic-naïve and 100% in biologic-failure patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Austrian cohort of ACTION, overall abatacept retention at 2 years was high, with higher retention rates in patients receiving abatacept as an earlier treatment line. Good/moderate EULAR response rate was higher in biologic-failure than in biologic-naïve patients.

A systematic review of guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis

Background

We systematically reviewed current guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to evaluate their range and nature, assess variations in their recommendations and highlight divergence in their perspectives.

Methods

We searched Medline and Embase databases using the terms 'clinical practice guidelines' and 'rheumatoid arthritis' from January 2000 to January 2017 together with publications of national and international bodies. We included guidelines providing recommendations on general RA management spanning a range of treatments and published in English. We undertook narrative assessments due to the heterogeneity of the guidelines.

Results

We identified 529 articles; 22 met our inclusion criteria. They were primarily developed by rheumatologists with variable involvement of patient and other experts. Three dealt with early RA, one established RA and 18 all patients. Most guidelines recommend regular assessments based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology core dataset; 18 recommended the disease activity score for 28 joints. Twenty recommended targeting remission; 16 suggested low disease activity as alternative. All guidelines recommend treating active RA; 13 made recommendations for moderate disease. The 21 guidelines considering early RA all recommended starting disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) as soon as possible; methotrexate was recommended for most patients. Nineteen recommended combination DMARDs when patients failed to respond fully to monotherapy and biologics were not necessarily indicated. Twenty made recommendations about biologics invariably suggesting their use after failing conventional DMARDs, particularly methotrexate. Most did not make specific recommendations about using one class of biologics preferentially. Eight recommended tapering biologics when patients achieved sustained good responses.

Conclusions

Five general principles transcend most guidelines: DMARDs should be started as soon as possible after the diagnosis; methotrexate is the best initial treatment; disease activity should be regularly monitored; give biologics to patients with persistently active disease who have already received methotrexate; remission or low disease activity are the preferred treatment target.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries

INTRODUCTION

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries.

METHOD

Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries.

RESULTS

In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163).

CONCLUSIONS

In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort.

KEY POINTS

• Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Intensive therapy and remissions in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of intensive treatment strategies in achieving remission in patients with both early and established Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated trials and comparative studies reporting remission in RA patients treated intensively with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Analysis used RevMan 5.3 to report relative risks (RR) in random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 928 publications: 53 studies were included (48 superiority studies; 6 head-to-head trials). In the superiority studies 3013/11259 patients achieved remission with intensive treatment compared with 1211/8493 of controls. Analysis of the 53 comparisons showed a significant benefit for intensive treatment (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.90, 2.61). Intensive treatment increased remissions in both early RA (23 comparisons; RR 1.56; 1.38, 1.76) and established RA (29 comparisons RR 4.21, 2.92, 6.07). All intensive strategies (combination DMARDs, biologics, JAK inhibitors) increased remissions. In the 6 head-to-head trials 317/787 patients achieved remission with biologics compared with 229/671 of patients receiving combination DMARD therapies and there was no difference between treatment strategies (RR 1.06; 0.93. 1.21). There were differences in the frequency of remissions between early and established RA. In early RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 49% compared with 34% in controls. In established RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 19% compared with 6% in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive treatment with combination DMARDs, biologics or JAK inhibitors increases the frequency of remission compared to control non-intensive strategies. The benefits are seen in both early and established RA.

A novel combination of astilbin and low-dose methotrexate respectively targeting A2AAR and its ligand adenosine for the treatment of collagen-induced arthritis

Methotrexate (MTX) is widely used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment with frequently serious adverse effects. Therefore, combination of low-dose MTX with other drugs is often used in clinic. In this study, we investigated the improvement of astilbin and low-dose MTX combination on collagen-induced arthritis in DBA/1J mice. Results showed that the clinic score, incidence rate, paw swelling, pathological changes of joints and rheumatoid factors were more alleviated in combination therapy than MTX or astilbin alone group. Elevated antibodies (IgG, IgG1, IgG2a, IgM and anti-collagen IgG) and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ and IL-17A) in serum were significantly inhibited, while anti-inflammatory cytokine, IL-10, was enhanced by combination therapy. Further studies indicated that combination therapy significantly decreased Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation and increased Treg cell differentiation. Mechanisms analysis demonstrated combination therapy greatly inhibited Con A-activated MAPK and inflammatory transcriptional signals. Moreover, MTX activated adenosine release and astilbin specifically up-regulated A_2A adenosine receptor (A_2AAR) expression simultaneously, which most probably contributed to the synergistic efficacy of combination therapy. ZM241385, a specific antagonist of A_2AAR, greatly blocked the effects of combination therapy on T cell functions and downstream pathways. All these findings suggest that astilbin is a valuable candidate for low-dose MTX combined therapy in RA via increasing A_2AAR/adenosine system and decreasing ERK/NFκB/STATs signals.

"Official View" on Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of International Guidelines and Consensus Statements

OBJECTIVE

To describe the perception of the current role of systemic glucocorticoids in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by examining their importance and the current level of evidence in recent guidelines, and to identify open questions to be addressed in future guidelines and research projects.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the databases Ovid Embase, PubMed Medline, and Cochrane Library for guidelines on the pharmacologic treatment of RA. Retrieved articles were evaluated regarding their quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool and scrutinized for all relevant information concerning the use of glucocorticoids.

RESULTS

All guidelines agree that glucocorticoids, especially if given at low doses and for a short duration, are an appropriate option in the treatment of RA. However, many recommendations remain vague, as reliable and detailed evidence is scarce. Important aspects of glucocorticoid therapy are partially or completely neglected, and the existing nomenclature is not used uniformly. Quality evaluation revealed flaws in many articles, concerning not only glucocorticoid-specific recommendations but also guideline quality in general.

CONCLUSION

Current recommendations for use of glucocorticoids in the management of RA are suboptimal. More rigorous evaluation of doses, timing, and duration of their use is needed. Existing nomenclature on glucocorticoid therapy should be used uniformly.

Drug-related problems in geriatric rehabilitation patients after discharge - A prevalence analysis and clinical case scenario-based pilot study

BACKGROUND

Geriatric patients bear a high risk for having drug-related problems (DRPs). Transitions of care are especially susceptible to these DRPs.

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the prevalence of DRPs in geriatric patients' post-discharge medication lists and to assess physicians' ability to identify DRPs by using clinical case scenarios.

METHODS

A sequential prospective mixed-method study was performed. In a DRP prevalence analysis, an expert panel of clinical pharmacists analyzed DRPs in post-discharge medication lists of long-term hospitalized patients from a German inpatient geriatric rehabilitation center. Based on these results, the expert panel created two clinical case scenarios with applicable medication history. The cases were reflective of the most commonly identified DRPs. They were provided to hospital physicians and general practitioners (GPs) for assessment. Physicians were asked whether they approve the prescriptions in the clinical case scenarios. If a physician had not identified a prescription containing a defined DRP, the clinical pharmacist then provided drug information about it. With this, physicians' ability to identify DRPs and their response to a theoretical intervention was assessed.

RESULTS

DRP prevalence analysis: A total of 639 prescriptions were analyzed from 63 enrolled patients of whom 52 (83%) were affected by at least one DRP. Twenty-eight hospital physicians and 26 GPs have been assessed. They identified 172 (46%) from 378 possible DRPs (seven DRPs multiplied by 54 physicians). For unidentified DRPs, physicians received tailored drug information and the number of identified DRPs rose to 298 (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

A clear majority of patients were affected by DRPs. However, the results from the following pilot study confirm that many DRPs at care transitions can be reduced by providing applicable medication history and drug information. This intervention can be done by clinical pharmacists as part of the multidisciplinary care team in routine care.

SYNOPSIS

Geriatric patients bear a high risk for having drug-related problems (DRPs). Strategies to protect them are needed, especially during transitions of care due to information and knowledge gaps. Therefore a sequential prospective mixed method study was performed. Initial post-discharge medication lists of geriatric patients were analyzed for DRPs with 83% of patients being affected. Afterwards, physicians' ability to identify DRPs was assessed based on clinical case scenarios. These clinical case scenarios included an applicable medication history and tailored drug information was provided. Under these conditions, physicians identified many of the defined DRPs.

Poor prognostic factors guiding treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a review of data from randomized clinical trials and cohort studies

Prognostic factors are used for treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). High disease activity, the early presence of erosions, and autoantibody positivity are the most frequently used poor prognostic factors but other features, such as functional disability, extraarticular disease, or multibiomarkers, are also assessed. Prognostic factors are incorporated in current treatment recommendations for the management of RA and are used as inclusion criteria in randomized controlled trials. They are defined heterogeneously and the relevance of a single or combined presence of poor prognostic factors remains unclear. This review summarizes the current definitions of poor prognostic factors and their use in clinical research. Perspectives on future research are also outlined.

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany

Background

In Germany, the clinical use of TNF-α inhibitors in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) grew from 2 % of treated patients in 2000 to 20 % in 2008. In 2012, adalimumab was the bestselling drug in the statutory health insurance system with net expenditure of € 581 mio.

Objectives

We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of RA in Germany.

Methods

We set up an individual patient sampling lifetime model to simulate 10,000 hypothetical patients. The patients’ functional status improves according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria. In each 6‑month cycle, treatment might be discontinued due to loss of efficacy or adverse events.

Results

In the base case, patients gain 7.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with conventional synthetic therapy and 9.92 QALYs if adalimumab combination therapy is added to the treatment algorithm. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) is € 24,492 based on German list prices. After deducting mandatory rebates and taxes, the ICUR is € 17,277, comparing favorably to analyses in other countries. Adalimumab combination therapy lowers indirect costs from € 162,698 to € 134,363. The ICUR based on total costs is € 14,550 (€ 7,335 after deducting taxes and rebates). Sensitivity analysis shows that adalimumab combination therapy becomes a dominant treatment option for younger baseline populations, i. e. adalimumab is both more effective and less expensive for baseline age 30 due to savings in indirect costs.

Conclusions

Our complex probabilistic model shows that estimation of cost-effectiveness for RA relies on the incorporation of indirect costs and a sufficiently long simulation horizon to capture the complete range of possible outcomes and the associated long-term benefits of biological treatment.

Gap Between Official Guidelines and Clinical Practice for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in São Paulo, Brazil

PURPOSE

Biological agents used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are associated with serious adverse events. Guidelines provide standards for the prescribing and monitoring of these drugs. In São Paulo, health litigation for access to medicines has fueled the demand for biological therapy. The extent to which biological agents are being appropriately prescribed and patients are being appropriately monitored is uncertain. Our goal was to determine whether RA clinical guidelines are being translated into clinical practice for patients receiving treatment as a result of lawsuits against the government.

METHODS

We identified patients through records of the State Secretary of Health of São Paulo from 2003 to 2011. We consulted guidelines from 5 countries and chose those recommendations endorsed by all of the guidelines reviewed as standards. Pharmacy records provided data regarding biologic use. The guidelines recommended the use of biological agents only when patients had been receiving treatment with at least 1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and recommended annual monitoring of laboratory blood tests.

FINDINGS

Of the 238 patients identified in the database, 216 patients were interviewed, and 124 (57.4%) patients were still using biological agents at the time of the survey. Of the patients interviewed, 167 patients (77.3%) started biological treatment when using ≥2 DMARDs before, 22 patients (10.2%) were using 1 DMARD before, and 27 patients (12.5%) had never taken a DMARD. Of the 124 patients still taking biological drugs, 117 patients (94.3%) had visited a doctor at least once per year, but 28 patients (22.6%) did not undergo the recommended laboratory blood testing. Only 43 of the 124 patients (34.7%) still taking biological agents met the guideline criteria for both the use of previous agents and the appropriate monitoring.

IMPLICATIONS

An important gap between clinical practice and the national guidelines exists among treatments prescribed for plaintiffs obtaining medicines for RA in São Paulo. The results suggest the need for intervention by health authorities.

Development of System-level Performance Measures for Evaluation of Models of Care for Inflammatory Arthritis in Canada

Objective.

To develop system-level performance measures for evaluating the care of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Methods.

This study involved several methodological phases. Over multiple rounds, various participants were asked to help define a set of candidate measurement themes. A systematic search was conducted of existing guidelines and measures. A set of 6 performance measures was defined and presented to 50 people, including patients with IA, rheumatologists, allied health professionals, and researchers using a 3-round, online, modified Delphi process. Participants rated the validity, feasibility, relevance, and likelihood of use of the measures. Measures with median ratings ≥ 7 for validity and relevance were included in the final set.

Results.

Six performance measures were developed evaluating the following aspects of care, with each measure being applied separately for each type of IA except where specified: waiting times for rheumatology consultation for patients with new onset IA, percentage of patients with IA seen by a rheumatologist, percentage of patients with IA seen in yearly followup by a rheumatologist, percentage of patients with RA treated with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), time to DMARD therapy in RA, and number of rheumatologists per capita.

Conclusion.

The first set of system-level performance measures for IA care in Canada has been developed with broad input. The measures focus on timely access to care and initiation of appropriate treatment for patients with IA, and are likely to be of interest to other arthritis care systems internationally.

Outcomes and costs of incorporating a multibiomarker disease activity test in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) blood test has been clinically validated as a measure of disease activity in patients with RA. We aimed to estimate the effect of the MBDA test on physical function for patients with RA (based on HAQ), quality-adjusted life years and costs over 10 years.

METHODS

A decision analysis was conducted to quantify the effect of using the MBDA test on RA-related outcomes and costs to private payers and employers. Results of a clinical management study reporting changes to anti-rheumatic drug recommendations after use of the MBDA test informed clinical utility. The effect of treatment changes on HAQ was derived from 5 tight-control and 13 treatment-switch trials. Baseline HAQ scores and the HAQ score relationship with medical costs and quality of life were derived from published National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases data.

RESULTS

Use of the MBDA test is projected to improve HAQ scores by 0.09 units in year 1, declining to 0.02 units after 10 years. Over the 10 year time horizon, quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.08 years and costs decreased by US$457 (cost savings in disability-related medical costs, US$659; in productivity costs, US$2137). The most influential variable in the analysis was the effect of the MBDA test on clinician treatment recommendations and subsequent HAQ changes.

CONCLUSION

The MBDA test aids in the assessment of disease activity in patients with RA by changing treatment decisions, improving the functional status of patients and cost savings. Further validation is ongoing and future longitudinal studies are warranted.

Comparison of tocilizumab and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis of 1603 patients managed in routine clinical practice

Tocilizumab (TCZ) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are recommended for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with inadequate response (IR) to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This retrospective analysis assessed the efficacy of TCZ and TNFi, alone or in combination with DMARDs, in 1603 patients with IR to previous treatment with either DMARDs (DMARD-IR) and/or TNFi (TNFi-IR), initiating treatment with TCZ or a TNFi, managed in routine clinical practice. Patients were grouped according to treatment history and treatment initiated: DMARD-IR patients initiating treatment with TCZ + DMARD (DMARD-IR TCZ) or TNFi + DMARD (DMARD-IR TNFi), DMARD-IR and/or TNFi-IR patients initiating treatment with TCZ monotherapy (TCZ mono) or TNFi monotherapy (TNFi mono), and TNFi-IR patients initiating treatment with TCZ + DMARD (TNFi-IR TCZ) or TNFi + DMARD (TNFi-IR TNFi). Patients initiating treatment with TCZ generally had more severe disease and longer disease duration compared with the corresponding TNFi group. Significantly more patients achieved remission (DAS28 ESR <2.6) in the TCZ groups compared with corresponding TNFi groups (DMARD-IR, TCZ 44.0 % vs. TNFi 29.6 %; monotherapy, TCZ 37.2 % vs. TNFi 30.2 %; TNF-IR, TCZ 41.3 % vs. TNFi 19.2 %; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). More patients achieved moderate–good responses (EULAR criteria) in the TCZ treatment groups (79–85 %) compared with TNFi treatment groups (65–81 %). Patient-reported outcomes showed greater improvements in TCZ compared with TNFi groups. In patients with inadequate response to DMARDs and/or TNFi treated in routine clinical practice, TCZ in combination with DMARDs or as monotherapy resulted in significantly more patients achieving remission and more marked improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with TNF inhibitors.

Towards the implementation of 'no evidence of disease activity' in multiple sclerosis treatment: the multiple sclerosis decision model

OBJECTIVE

The introduction of new and potent therapies for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) has increased the desire for therapeutic success. There is growing doubt that the mere reduction of relapse rate, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers are exclusive and appropriate factors to monitor the new aim of 'no evidence of disease activity' (NEDA). However, there is no generally accepted definition so far.

METHODS

To achieve the therapeutic aim of NEDA, a panel of MS experts searched the available literature on clinical and paraclinical outcomes to propose a test battery that is sensitive to detect disease activity in an everyday clinical setting.

RESULTS

The panel proposed to include, besides relapse rate, disability progression and MRI, neuropsychological outcome measures such as cognitive status, fatigue, depression and quality of life. To standardize the examinations in an economic and schematic way, a multifactorial model [multiple sclerosis decision model (MSDM)] that includes the domains 'relapse', 'disability progression', 'MRI', and 'neuropsychology' is proposed. The scheme reflects the complexity of the disease even in the early stages when scales such as the EDSS are not able to distinguish low levels of progression.

CONCLUSION

The MSDM aims to support early treatment decisions and uncover timely treatment failure. Prospective investigations are required to prove that such a disease-monitoring concept leads to an early and effective silencing of disease activity.