Daily practice feasibility and effectiveness of treating long-standing rheumatoid arthritis to target with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a prospective cohort study

Efficacy and safety of treat-to-target strategy studies in rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The concept of treat-to-target (T2T), a treatment strategy in which treatment is directed to reach and maintain a defined goal such as remission or low disease activity (LDA), has been explored for several diseases including rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, a comprehensive review of T2T in all rheumatic diseases has not recently been undertaken.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of a T2T strategy in the management of adult patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

PUBMED, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from January 1990 to December 2023 using key words related to a T2T strategy and rheumatic diseases; T2T strategy clinical trials or observational studies were included. Clinical, physical function and radiologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs) of the T2T strategies were investigated and a random-effect meta-analysis was conducted for the most commonly used outcomes in RA studies.

RESULTS

The search identified 7896 studies, of which 66 fit inclusion criteria, including 50 in RA, 3 in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 1 in spondyloarthritis (SpA) and 12 in gout. For the studies comparing a T2T strategy with usual care (UC) in RA, 83.3% (20/24) showed a T2T strategy could achieve significantly better clinical outcomes, and the meta-analysis showed that patients treated with a T2T strategy were more likely to be in remission (pooled RR: 1.68 (1.47-1.92), p<0.001] and achieve DAS-28 response (pooled standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.47 (0.26-0.69), P<0.001] at 1 year than patients treated with UC. Sensitivity analyses showed that a T2T strategy with a predefined treatment protocol had better clinical efficacy than that without protocol. In terms of improving physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), 11/19 (57.9%) studies found a T2T strategy was significantly more likely to achieve these than UC, with the meta-analysis for the mean change of HAQ score supporting this conclusion (pooled SMD: 1.48 (0.46-2.51), p=0.004). Five out of 9 studies (55.6%) demonstrated greater benefit regarding radiographic progression from a T2T strategy. In terms of cost-effectiveness and AEs, 2/2 studies found a T2T strategy was more cost-effective than UC and 8/8 studies showed no tendency for AEs to occur more often with a T2T strategy. For the studies in PsA and SpA, a T2T strategy was also demonstrated to be more effective than UC in clinical and functional benefits, but not in radiologic outcomes. All gout studies showed that sUA level could be controlled more effectively with a T2T strategy, and 2 studies revealed that the T2T strategy could inhibit erosion development or crystal deposition.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with active RA, a T2T strategy has been shown in mulitple studies to increase the likelihood of achieving clinical response and improving HRQoL without increasing economic costs and AEs. Limited studies have shown clinical and functional benefits from T2T strategies in active PsA and SpA. A T2T strategy has also been found to improve clinical and radiologic outcomes in gout. T2T trials in other rheumatic diseases are lacking.

What is the best target in a treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis? Results from a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

OBJECTIVES

A treat-to-target (T2T) strategy has been shown to be superior to usual care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the optimal target remains unknown. Targets are based on a disease activity measure (eg, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Indices/Clinical Disease Activity Indices (SDAI/CDAI), and a cut-off such as remission or low disease activity (LDA). Our aim was to compare the effect of different targets on clinical and radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase and (pre)MEDLINE databases were searched (1 June 2022) for randomised controlled trials and cohort studies after 2003 that applied T2T in RA patients for ≥12 months. Data were extracted from individual T2T study arms; risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Using meta-regression, we evaluated the effect of the target used on clinical and radiographic outcomes, correcting for heterogeneity between and within studies.

RESULTS

115 treatment arms were used in the meta-regression analyses. Aiming for SDAI/CDAI-LDA was statistically superior to targeting DAS-LDA regarding DAS-remission and SDAI/CDAI/Boolean-remission outcomes over 1-3 years. Aiming for SDAI/CDAI-LDA was also significantly superior to DAS-remission regarding both SDAI/CDAI/Boolean-remission (over 1-3 years) and mean SDAI/CDAI (over 1 year). Targeting DAS-remission rather than DAS-LDA only improved the percentage of patients in DAS-remission, and only statistically significantly after 2-3 years of T2T. No differences were observed in Health Assessment Questionnaire and radiographic progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting SDAI/CDAI-LDA, and to a lesser extent DAS-remission, may be superior to targeting DAS-LDA regarding several clinical outcomes. However, due to the risk of residual confounding and the lack of data on (over)treatment and safety, future studies should aim to directly and comprehensively compare targets.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021249015.

Effect of dose adjustments on the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of an open-label, long-term extension study (ORAL Sequel)

Introduction/objectives

We assess the impact of switching versus staying on the same tofacitinib dose on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

ORAL Sequel was an open-label, long-term extension study of patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID for up to 9.5 years. Tofacitinib doses could be switched during the study at investigator discretion. In this post hoc analysis, data from ORAL Sequel were stratified into four groups: 5 → 10 mg BID (Dose-up); 5 mg BID (Stay-on 5); 10 → 5 mg BID (Dose-down); and 10 mg BID (Stay-on 10). Efficacy assessments over 12 months included: change from baseline in 4-component Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28), and DAS28 minimum clinically important difference, remission, and low disease activity (LDA) rates. Safety was assessed for the study duration.

Results

Generally, DAS28 improvements and minimum clinically important difference rates were significantly greater (p < 0.05) in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 up to month 12. DAS28 remission rates were significantly greater in Dose-up versus Stay-on 5 at month 12. Change from baseline in DAS28 was similar in Dose-down and Stay-on 10. No significant differences in DAS28 LDA rates were observed between groups. Safety data were similar overall across the four groups.

Conclusion

In patients with RA receiving open-label tofacitinib, this analysis found that some benefited from increasing dose from 5 to 10 mg BID and did not find that reducing dose from 10 to 5 mg BID affected efficacy or that dose switching in either direction affected safety.

Study registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00413699. Registered December 20, 2006. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00413699

Key Points • This post hoc analysis of data from the long-term extension study, ORAL Sequel, assessed the impact of dose switching between tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID), at the investigator’s discretion, on efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). • Dosing up from tofacitinib 5 to 10 mg BID was associated with improved efficacy up to 12 months versus staying on 5 mg BID, and dosing down from 10 to 5 mg BID was not generally associated with a significant loss of efficacy. • Safety outcomes were generally consistent across dose groups and did not change markedly after switching dose in either direction. • These findings can help to inform physicians on what may be expected in terms of efficacy and safety when adjusting tofacitinib dose according to clinical need. The recommended tofacitinib dosage for the treatment of RA in most jurisdictions is 5 mg BID.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10067-021-05908-z.

Centers of Excellence Implementation for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis in Colombia: A Cost-Analysis

Background

Health systems need to optimize the use of resources, especially in high-cost diseases as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to evaluate the efficiency of using centers of excellence (CoE) as a strategy for improving RA treatment in Colombia.

Methods

A cost description analysis was carried out using the standard costing technique. We estimated the costs of medical consultations, laboratories, images, and medications for RA. Categories of care standards stratified by severity were defined using the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28). We evaluated the impact, in terms of costs (US dollars), for providing RA clinical care for a previously described cohort using the CoE approach. Statistical analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel^®, and R.

Results

Expenditure on therapeutic drugs increases as the severity of RA increases. Drugs represent 53.6% of the total cost for the low disease activity (LDA) stage, 75.2% for moderate disease activity (MDA), 88.5% for severe disease activity (SDA) and 97% for SDA with biologic treatment (SDA+Biologic). Treating 968 patients would cost US$612,639 (US$487,978-1,220,160) at baseline, per year. After a year of follow-up at the CoE, treating the same patients would cost US$388,765 (US$321,710-708,476), which implies potential cost-savings of up to US$223,874 per year.

Conclusion

The strategy of providing clinical care for RA through CoE can save US$231.3 per patient-per year. The results of our study show that CoE could greatly impact the public policies dealing with treatment of RA in Colombia. Applying the CoE model in our country would both improve health outcomes, as well as being more efficient in terms of costs.

Remission rate and predictors of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis under treat-to-target strategy in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the remission rate of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world studies and to summarize potential predictors of remission in RA. Studies reporting remission rate in patients with RA were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies according to eligibility criteria and extracted data. Generally, observational studies reporting remission rate in adult (≥ 18 years) patients with RA were included. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled analyses of remission rate were conducted using a random-effects model and data were analyzed in subgroups to identify potential source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed by serially excluding each study. Potential predictors of remission were summarized. Thirty-one studies with ~ 82,450 RA patients in total were included. Using the DAS28 remission criteria, the pooled 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month remission rates were 17.2%, 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that 11.7% and 13.8% of TNFi inadequate responders reached remission after 6- and 12-month use of non-TNFi biologics. Predictors of remission included male, higher education level, and lower baseline disease activity, while initial use of corticosteroids was negative predictors of remission. Sustained remission was rare regardless of different criteria used. Remission was a reachable target in real-world studies, while attention should also be paid to achieve sustained remission.

Future therapeutic targets in rheumatoid arthritis?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by persistent joint inflammation. Without adequate treatment, patients with RA will develop joint deformity and progressive functional impairment. With the implementation of treat-to-target strategies and availability of biologic therapies, the outcomes for patients with RA have significantly improved. However, the unmet need in the treatment of RA remains high as some patients do not respond sufficiently to the currently available agents, remission is not always achieved and refractory disease is not uncommon. With better understanding of the pathophysiology of RA, new therapeutic approaches are emerging. Apart from more selective Janus kinase inhibition, there is a great interest in the granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor pathway, Bruton's tyrosine kinase pathway, phosphoinositide-3-kinase pathway, neural stimulation and dendritic cell-based therapeutics. In this review, we will discuss the therapeutic potential of these novel approaches.

Reactivation of cutaneous and mucocutaneous tegumentary leishmaniasis in rheumatoid arthritis patients: an emerging problem?

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic condition that is frequent in patients living in tropical areas exposed to leishmaniasis. RA therapy involves immunosuppressant drugs such as methotrexate (MTX), monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and prednisone. We report an unusual presentation of cutaneous (CL) or mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (ML) in RA patients from an endemic area of leishmaniasis. A 51-year-old woman noted a cutaneous ulcer on her left ankle during MTX and prednisone RA therapy. Initially diagnosed as a venous stasis ulcer, the aspirate of the injury revealed the presence of Leishmania DNA. A 73-year-old woman presenting non-ulcerated, infiltrated and painful erythematous nodules inside her nostrils while receiving MTX, anti-TNF mAb, and prednisone for RA, had also the aspirate of injuries showing the presence of Leishmania DNA. Both patients healed after the therapy with liposomal amphotericin. The RA therapy has changed to low-dose prednisone, without further reactivation episodes. Both cases suggest that CL or ML can reactivate after administration of an immunosuppressant for RA treatment. Therefore, immunosuppressive treatments for RA should be carefully prescribed in patients from endemic areas or with a history of CL and ML.

Rheumatoid arthritis seems to have DMARD treatment decision influenced by fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

To compare DMARD use in patients with and without FM over time, including overtreatment and undertreatment rates in both groups.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study with patients attending an RA outpatient clinic was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited between March 2006 and June 2007 and were followed through December 2013. Data on DMARD use (prevalences, doses and escalation rates), DAS28, HAQ and radiographic progression were compared among RA patients with FM and without FM. Mistreatment clinical scenarios were allegedly identified and compared between groups.

RESULTS

256 RA patients (32 with FM) were followed for 6.2±2.0 (mean±SD) years comprising 2986 visits. At baseline, RA duration was 11.1±7.4 years. DAS28 and HAQ were greater in RA with FM group, and were closer to RA without FM group towards the end. RA patients with FM used higher doses of tricyclic antidepressants, leflunomide and prednisone, and lower doses of methotrexate. When compared to RA patients without FM, participants with RA and FM used more often tricyclic antidepressants, leflunomide, prednisone, continuous analgesics and less often methotrexate. Groups presented similar 7-year biologic-free survival, and radiographic progression-free survival in Cox regression. RA patients with FM had greater proportions of visits in mistreatment scenarios when compared to RA patients without FM (28.4 vs. 19.8%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RA patients with FM used more leflunomide and prednisone, and RA mistreatment was more frequent in FM patients. Certainly, RA patients with FM will benefit from a personalized T2T strategy, including ultrasound (when suitable) and proper FM treatment.

Rheumatoid arthritis seems to have DMARD treatment decision influenced by fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

To compare DMARD use in patients with and without FM over time, including overtreatment and undertreatment rates in both groups.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study with patients attending an RA outpatient clinic was conducted. Participants were consecutively recruited between March 2006 and June 2007 and were followed through December 2013. Data on DMARD use (prevalences, doses and escalation rates), DAS28, HAQ and radiographic progression were compared among RA patients with FM and without FM. Mistreatment clinical scenarios were allegedly identified and compared between groups.

RESULTS

256 RA patients (32 with FM) were followed for 6.2±2.0 (mean±SD) years comprising 2,986 visits. At baseline, RA duration was 11.1±7.4 years. DAS28 and HAQ were greater in RA with FM group, and were closer to RA without FM group towards the end. RA patients with FM used higher doses of tricyclic antidepressants, leflunomide and prednisone, and lower doses of methotrexate. When compared to RA patients without FM, participants with RA and FM used more often tricyclic antidepressants, leflunomide, prednisone, continuous analgesics and less often methotrexate. Groups presented similar 7-year biologic-free survival, and radiographic progression-free survival in Cox regression. RA patients with FM had greater proportions of visits in mistreatment scenarios when compared to RA patients without FM (28.4 vs. 19.8%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RA patients with FM used more leflunomide and prednisone, and RA mistreatment was more frequent in FM patients. Certainly, RA patients with FM will benefit from a personalized T2T strategy, including ultrasound (when suitable) and proper FM treatment.

Effectiveness of treatment with biologic- and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Colombia

AIMS

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease cause of disability and high costs. To determine the effectiveness of therapy with biologic- and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with RA and factors associated with the control of the disease.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of RA patients receiving treatment with DMARDs in a rheumatologic healthcare institution in five Colombian cities from December 2009 to August 2013. The effectiveness was assessed by Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28) and a lower value of 2.6 was considered remission.

RESULTS

A total of 827 patients were studied for an average observation period of 17.3 ± 11.0 months, with mean age 54.3 ± 13.1 years. The most frequently used DMARDs were methotrexate, leflunomide and chloroquine. The most frequently used biological DMARDs were etanercept and abatacept. Initially, 17.8% of the patients received some biological DMARDs in comparison with 28.7% at the end of the observation period. A median DAS28 of 3.5 was found, which was reduced by the end of the observation period to 2.8 (p < 0.001), and cases of patients who were in remission increased from 30.1% to 42.9%. Treatment with leflunomide (OR: 0.47; CI 95%: 0.35-0.64, p < 0.001) or rituximab (OR: 0.37; CI 95%: 0.17-0.83, p = 0.016) was associated with a lesser probability of reaching remission. To be treated in the city of Manizales (OR: 2.56; CI 95%: 1.36-4.82, p = 0.004) was associated with a high probability of remission.

CONCLUSIONS

Biological and DMARDs therapy for RA was effective in a relevant proportion of Colombian patients as a consequence of management with strategies set on remission aims quantified using DAS28. Cost-effectiveness of the therapy must be evaluated.