Comparative effectiveness of treatment options after conventional DMARDs failure in rheumatoid arthritis

Drug Persistence and Incidence of Active Tuberculosis of Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitors Versus Tocilizumab as the First-Line Biological Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Nationwide Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Drug persistence may be a surrogate marker that reflects both long-term efficacy and safety in clinical settings, and tuberculosis (TB) is considered as one of the most important opportunistic infections after the biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare drug persistence and incidence of TB between tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitors and tocilizumab in patients with RA using data from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database.

METHODS

In this analysis, 5449 patients with RA who started TNFα inhibitors, such as adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and golimumab or tocilizumab, as the first-line biological therapy between January 2014 and December 2017 were analyzed and followed up until December 2019. Drug persistence was defined as the duration from initiation to first discontinuation, and TB was defined as the prescription of > 2 anti-TB medications after the initiation of biologics.

RESULTS

TNFα inhibitors and tocilizumab were prescribed in 4202 (adalimumab, 1413; etanercept, 1100; infliximab, 769; golimumab 920) and 1247 patients with RA, respectively. During the analysis period, 2090 (49.7%) and 477 (38.3%) patients with RA discontinued TNFα inhibitors and tocilizumab, respectively, and 42 patients with RA developed TB (TNFα inhibitors, 33; tocilizumab, 9). After adjustment for confounding factors, TNFα inhibitors were significantly associated with a higher risk of discontinuation compared with tocilizumab (hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, all types of TNFα inhibitors, except for infliximab, demonstrated a significantly lower persistence rate compared with tocilizumab. There was no significant difference in TB incidence between tocilizumab and TNFα inhibitors. In subgroup analysis, infliximab has a significantly higher risk of TB compared with tocilizumab (HR 2.84, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, tocilizumab had longer persistence than TNFα inhibitors with a similar incidence of TB. Our analysis has limitations: (1) The HIRA database lacks clinical details like disease activity and joint damage extent, potentially influencing the analysis results. (2) Reasons for discontinuing biological agents were not available. (3) TB diagnoses may be inaccurate because of missing microbiological results. (4) We did not analyze the impact of treating latent TB infection on TB development post-biological treatment, despite mandatory screening in Korea.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib With Continuing Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment with tofacitinib and subsequently incorporating it into a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD) treatment sequence and to compare the cost-effectiveness of this sequence with that of continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

A cohort-based Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two tofacitinib treatment sequences compared with that of continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence over a lifetime. Of the two tofacitinib sequences, the first consisted of initial tofacitinib treatment followed by biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and the second consisted of csDMARD treatments followed by tofacitinib. A third treatment sequence, continuing the csDMARD treatment sequence before starting bDMARDs, was used as a comparator. Efficacy was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates (ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70) after 6 months, which were converted to changes in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score. Utility was estimated by mapping from the HAQ-DI score, costs were analyzed from a Korean societal perspective, and outcomes were considered in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a lifetime for starting with tofacitinib and incorporating tofacitinib into the csDMARD treatment sequence versus continuing csDMARDs only were US$14,537 per QALY and US$7,086 per QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these results.

Conclusion

Starting with tofacitinib and incorporating it into a csDMARDs treatment sequence is cost-effective compared to continuing csDMARDs alone in patients with RA.

Health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of EuroQoL (EQ-5D) utility scores from Asia

INTRODUCTION

Region-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores or utility values are representative and pivotal for economic evaluations as they are influenced by the value judgment of the local population. This study systematically reviewed and pooled EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) utility scores of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across primary studies from Asia.

METHODS

Studies reporting EQ-5D utility scores among adult RA patients from Asian countries were systematically searched in PubMed-Medline, Scopus and Embase since inception through February 2020. Selected studies were systematically reviewed and study quality assessment was performed. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model with subgroup and meta-regression analysis to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Among 1391 searched articles, 37 studies with 31 983 participants were systematically reviewed and meta-analysis was conducted among 31 studies. The pooled EQ-5D scores and EQ-5D visual analog score were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.69, I²  = 99.65%) and 61.21 (50.73-71.69, I²  = 99.56%) respectively with high heterogeneity. For RA patients with no, low, moderate and high disease activity based on Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28, the pooled EQ-5D scores were 0.78 (0.65-0.90), 0.73 (0.65-0.80), 0.53 (0.32- 0.74), and 0.47 (0.32-0.62), respectively. On meta-regression, age of patients (P < .05) was positively associated and use of glucocorticoids (P < .05) was inversely associated with utility values.

CONCLUSION

Lower EQ-5D scores were associated with severe disease activity, increasing age and female gender among RA patients. The study provides pooled EQ-5D scores for RA patients that are useful inputs for cost-utility studies in Asia.

A paradigm shift in studies based on rheumatoid arthritis clinical registries

Clinical research is the study of aspects of patient health or illness that are closely related to clinical practice. In the late 20th and early 21th century, outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improved dramatically due to breakthroughs in new drugs. Patient-reported outcome measures now play a significant role in the drug development process as study endpoints in clinical trials of new therapies, and this has led to increased interest in the patient's perspective, drug safety and treatment outcomes in clinical practice. In accordance with these needs, many prospective cohorts for RA patients and registries of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been actively conducted in the United States and European and Asian countries. A gradual shift is taking place in the major outcomes of clinical research using these prospective cohorts and registries. This article will introduce representative registries for RA in each country set up in the early 2000s and will discuss future perspectives in clinical research on RA patients using such clinical registries.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

International multicenter randomized, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial of β-D-mannuronic acid in rheumatoid arthritis patients

BACKGROUND

The oral administration of drug β-D-mannuronic acid (M2000) showed a potent therapeutic effect in phase I/II study in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Here, our aim is to assess the efficacy and safety of this new drug in RA patients under a multinational, randomized placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial.

METHOD

Patients (n = 288) with active disease at baseline and inadequate response to conventional drugs were randomly allocated to three groups; (1) receiving mannuronic acid at a dose of two capsules (500 mg) per day orally for 12 weeks, (2) placebo-controlled, and (3) conventional. The primary endpoints were the America College of Rheumatology 20 response (ACR20), 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (M-HAQ-DI). In addition, the participants were followed-up for safety assessment.

RESULTS

In this phase III trial, after 12 weeks of treatment, there was a significant reduction in ACR20 between mannuronic-treated patients compared to placebo and conventional groups. Moreover, there was a similar significant improvement for DAS28 following mannuronic therapy. The statistical analysis showed a significant reduction in the swollen and tender joint count in mannuronic-treated patients compared with the placebo group. On the other side, mannuronic acid showed no-to-very low adverse events in comparison to placebo.

CONCLUSION

The results of this multinational, phase III clinical trial provided a potent evidence base for the use of β-D-mannuronic acid as a new highly safe and efficient drug in the treatment of RA.

A phase I/II randomized, controlled, clinical trial for assessment of the efficacy and safety of β-D-mannuronic acid in rheumatoid arthritis patients

BACKGROUND

Following the potent efficacy of β-D-mannuronic acid (M2000) in phase I/II trial in ankylosing spondylitis patients, the present clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of this novel drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who had inadequate response to conventional therapy.

METHOD

The study was a 12-week randomized, controlled, phase I/II clinical trial with two treatment arms: M2000 and conventional treatment. Patients who had RA according to the modified American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, with active disease at baseline also inadequate response to conventional therapy, were enrolled in this study. M2000 was administrated at a dose of two capsules (500 mg) per day orally during a period of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients fulfilling the ACR 20% improvement criteria after 12 weeks of M2000 therapy. Moreover, the patients were also followed up for safety.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and conventional groups at baseline characteristics. The ACR20 response rate was significantly higher among M2000-treated patients than conventional-treated control, so that 74% of patients in treatment group showed an ACR20 response after 12 weeks of M2000 therapy (74 versus 16%; P = 0.011). 10% of M2000-treated patients and 57.1% of conventional-treated patient's adverse events occurred during this study.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with M2000 in combination with conventional therapy showed a significantly superior efficacy along with a high safety profile compared to conventional-treated patients. Thereby, M2000 might be suggested as a suitable option in the treatment of RA.