Real-world effectiveness of a single conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (cDMARD) plus an anti-TNF agent versus multiple cDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective observational study

Objective

The objective of this prospective, observational multicenter study (NCT03264703) was to compare the effectiveness of single conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (cDMARD) plus anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy versus multiple cDMARD treatments in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following cDMARD failure in the real-world setting in South Korea.

Methods

At the treating physicians' discretion, patients received single cDMARD plus anti-TNF therapy or multiple cDMARDs. Changes from baseline in disease activity score 28-joint count with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), corticosteroid use, and Korean Health Assessment Questionnaire (KHAQ-20) scores were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

Of 207 enrollees, the final analysis included 45 of 73 cDMARD plus anti-TNF and 91 of 134 multiple-cDMARD recipients. There were no significant between-group differences (BGDs) in ANCOVA-adjusted changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR at 3, 6 (primary endpoint), and 12 months (BGDs -0.18, -0.38, and -0.03, respectively). More cDMARD plus anti-TNF than multiple-cDMARD recipients achieved a >50% reduction from baseline in corticosteroid dosage at 12 months (35.7% vs 14.6%; p=0.007). Changes from baseline in KHAQ-20 scores at 3, 6, and 12 months were significantly better with cDMARD plus anti-TNF therapy than with multiple cDMARDs (BGD -0.18, -0.19, and -0.19 points, respectively; all p≤0.024).

Conclusion

In the real-world setting, relative to multiple cDMARDs, single cDMARD plus anti-TNF therapy significantly improved quality-of-life scores and reduced corticosteroid use, with no significant BGD in disease activity, in RA patients in whom previous cDMARD therapy had failed.

Employment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have difficulties maintaining employment due to the impact of the disease on their work ability. This review aims to investigate the employment rates at different stages of disease and to identify predictors of employment among individuals with RA.

METHODS

The study was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines focusing on studies reporting employment rate in adults with diagnosed RA. The literature review included cross-sectional and cohort studies published in the English language between January 1966 and January 2023 in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Data encompassing employment rates, study demographics (age, gender, educational level), disease-related parameters (disease activity, disease duration, treatment), occupational factors, and comorbidities were extracted. Quality assessment was performed employing Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted to ascertain predictors for employment with odds ratios and confidence intervals, and test for heterogeneity, using chi-square and I2-statistics were calculated. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189057).

RESULTS

Ninety-one studies, comprising of a total of 101,831 participants, were included in the analyses. The mean age of participants was 51 years and 75.9% were women. Disease duration varied between less than one year to more than 18 years on average. Employment rates were 78.8% (weighted mean, range 45.4-100) at disease onset; 47.0% (range 18.5-100) at study entry, and 40.0% (range 4-88.2) at follow-up. Employment rates showed limited variations across continents and over time. Predictors for sustained employment included younger age, male gender, higher education, low disease activity, shorter disease duration, absence of medical treatment, and the absence of comorbidities. Notably, only some of the studies in this review met the requirements for high quality studies. Both older and newer studies had methodological deficiencies in the study design, analysis, and results reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings in this review highlight the prevalence of low employment rates among patients with RA, which increases with prolonged disease duration and higher disease activity. A comprehensive approach combining clinical and social interventions is imperative, particularly in early stages of the disease, to facilitate sustained employment among this patient cohort.

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.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Methotrexate-based Combinations for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after monotherapy. Little is known about the real-world comparative effectiveness of these MTX-DMARD combinations. This study compared the effectiveness of various MTX-based DMARD combinations for patients with RA initiating MTX-DMARD combination therapy using administrative claims database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with RA who initiated MTX combination treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), non-TNFi bDMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013 (index date), from the MarketScan Commercial Claims Data. Patients had continuous enrollment from the 6 months of preindex period until the 12 months of postindex period. The MTX-based DMARD combination therapy cohort was defined as ≥1 MTX prescription in the first 30 days from the index date and ≥14 days overlapping use of the prescription fills of the MTX and the index DMARD. Effectiveness was measured by using the claims algorithm (dosing, switching, addition, oral glucocorticoid use, or multiple glucocorticoid injection). Propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW), estimated by using the generalized boosted machine learning method, was used to balance the distribution of baseline variables between the combination groups. Multivariable logistic regression using PS-IPTW was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the combination groups. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the modified effectiveness algorithms or the time to the first treatment failure.

FINDINGS

A total of 3174 adult patients with RA starting an MTX-DMARD combination therapy were identified (mean [SD] age, 50 [9] years), including 1568 (49%) initiating a csDMARD + MTX, 1343 (42%) initiating TNFi + MTX, and 240 (8%) initiating non-TNFi bDMARD + MTX, and 23 (1%) initiating tsDMARD + MTX. Owing to the small sample, the tsDMARD combination group was not included in the comparative analysis. Algorithm-based therapy effectiveness was found in 9.95% of the csDMARD + MTX, 20.48% of the TNFi + MTX, and 20.83% of the non-TNFi + MTX groups. PS-IPTW showed that the csDMARD combination is less effective (adjusted odds ratio, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.341-0.524) than the TNFi combination; however, the non-TNFi biologic combination had similar effectiveness (aOR, 1.063; 95% CI, 0.680-1.662) compared to the TNFi combination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results.

IMPLICATIONS

Among RA patients initiating MTX-DMARD combinations, both non-TNFi biologics and TNFi-based combinations with MTX were equally effective, but csDMARD + MTX was less effective than the TNFi plus MTX.

Can we change the natural course of inflammatory bowel disease?

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are lifelong diseases characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract leading to its progressive and irreversible destruction. Whether early initiation of IBD-specific therapy impacts the long-term course of the disease remains unclear and has to be further explored in prospective disease-modification trials. Historically, surgery and hospitalization rates have been the surrogate markers to measure disease progression in IBD, providing an overview of the effectiveness of medical therapies. However, neither surgery nor hospitalization necessarily reflects a fail in therapeutic medical management, and many confounding factors make them biased outcomes. The Selecting Endpoints for Disease-Modification Trials consensus has defined the disease-modification endpoints required for these trials, including the impact of the disease on patient's life (health-related quality of life, disability, and fecal incontinence), the mid-term disease complications (bowel damage in CD, IBD-related surgery and hospitalizations, disease extension in UC, extra-intestinal manifestations, permanent stoma, short bowel syndrome), and the development of dysplasia/cancer and mortality in the long term. Most available data in the literature regarding the impact of current therapies on disease progression focused on anti-tumor necrosis factor agents and are based on retrospective or post-hoc studies. Thus, prospective disease-modification trials are pressingly required to explore the effectiveness of early intensified treatment in patients with severe disease or at risk for disease progression.

Association of tumor necrosis factor-alpha promoter region gene polymorphism at positions -308G/A, -857C/T, and -863C/A with etanercept response in Iraqi rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the association between polymorphisms in the promoter region of the tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) gene at locations -308G/A, -857C/T, and -863C/A with the tendency of being non-responder to etanercept.

Patients and methods

Between October 2020 and August 2021, a total of 80 patients (10 males, 70 females; mean age: 50 years; range, 30 to 72 years) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving etanercept for at least six months were included. The patients were divided into two groups responders and non-responders, based on their response after six months of continuous treatment. Following polymerase chain reaction amplification of the extracted deoxyribonucleic acid, sequencing by Sanger method was performed to identify the polymorphism at the TNF-α promoter region.

Results

In the responder group, the GG genotype of (-308G/A) and the AA genotype of (-863C/A) were both significantly present. The CC genotype of (-863C/A) was significantly present in the non-responders group. The CC of (-863C/A) SNP was the only genotype that appeared to increase the likelihood of being resistant to etanercept. The GG genotype of (-308G/A) was negatively correlated with the likelihood of being a non-responder. The (-857CC) and (-863CC) genotypes were significantly more prevalent in the non-responders group.

Conclusion

The presence of the (-863CC) genotype, alone or in combination with (-857CC), is linked to an increased likelihood of becoming a non-responder to etanercept. The GG genotype of -308G/A and the AA genotype of -863C/A significantly increase the likelihood of becoming responder to etanercept.

Evolving Short- and Long-Term Goals of Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Getting It Right, Making It Last

Short- and long-term treatment targets in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) evolved during the last decade, shifting from symptom control to endoscopic healing and patient-centered parameters. The STRIDE-II consensus placed these targets on a timeline from initiating treatment and introduced additional targets, normalization of serum and fecal biomarkers, restoration of quality of life, prevention of disability, and, in children, restoration of growth. Transmural healing in Crohn's disease and histologic healing in ulcerative colitis currently serve as adjunct measures to gauge remission depth. However, whether early treatment according to a treat-to-target paradigm affects the natural course of IBD remains unclear, leading to the need for prospective disease-modification trials. The SPIRIT consensus defined the targets for these trials to assess the long-term impact of early treatment on quality of life, disability, disease complications, risk of neoplastic lesions, and mortality. As further data emerge about the risk-benefit balance of aiming toward deeper healing, the targets in treating IBDs may continue to shift.

Evidence for Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) Channel Contribution to Arthritis Pain and Pathogenesis

Based on clinical and preclinical evidence, Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) channels have emerged as potential drug targets for the treatment of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and gout. This review summarizes the relevant data supporting a role for various TRP channels in arthritis pain and pathogenesis, as well as the current state of pharmacological efforts to ameliorate arthritis symptoms in patient populations.

Clinical utility of ozone therapy for musculoskeletal disorders

Oxygen-ozone (O₃) therapy serves as an alternative medical technique that increases the oxygen in the body along with the introduction of O₃. O₃ therapy has finally reached a level where the biological mechanisms of action have been understood, showing that they are in the domain of physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology. Few clinical applications have been reviewed here as well as exemplifying that O₃ therapy is particularly useful in musculoskeletal disorders. In the therapeutic range, O₃ can be used as a more effective and safe substitute of standard medications. O₃ therapy has been used for many years for its ability to inactivate various viruses, cancer, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome but is now making strides in the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, lumbar facet joint syndrome, subacromial bursitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis, hip bursitis, shoulder adhesive capsulitis, herniated disc, and temporomandibular joint disorder.

Effectiveness of methotrexate with step-down glucocorticoid remission induction (COBRA Slim) versus other intensive treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis in a treat-to-target approach: 1-year results of CareRA, a randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial

Objectives

Combining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with glucocorticoids (GCs) is an effective treatment strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), yet the ideal schedule and feasibility in daily practice are debated. We evaluated different DMARD combinations and GC remission induction schemes in poor prognosis patients; and methotrexate (MTX) with or without GC remission induction in good prognosis patients, during the first treatment year.

Methods

The Care in ERA (CareRA) trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated randomised pragmatic open-label superiority trial comparing remission induction regimens in a treat-to-target approach. DMARD-inexperienced patients with ERA were stratified into a high-risk or low-risk group based upon presence of erosions, disease activity, rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibodies. High-risk patients were randomised to a COBRA Classic (MTX + sulfasalazine + prednisone step-down from 60 mg), COBRA Slim (MTX + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) or COBRA Avant Garde (MTX + leflunomide + prednisone step-down from 30 mg) scheme. Low-risk patients were randomised to MTX tight step-up (MTX-TSU) or COBRA Slim. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in 28 joint disease activity score calculated with C-reactive protein remission at week 52 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes were safety and effectiveness (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01172639).

Results

98 COBRA Classic, 98 COBRA Slim (high risk), 93 COBRA Avant Garde, 47 MTX-TSU and 43 COBRA Slim (low risk) patients were evaluated. Remission was achieved in 64.3% (63/98) COBRA Classic, 60.2% (59/98) COBRA Slim (high risk) and 62.4% (58/93) COBRA Avant Garde patients at W52 (p=0.840); and in 57.4% (27/47) MTX-TSU and 67.4% (29/43) COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.329). Less adverse events occurred per patient with COBRA Slim (high risk) compared with COBRA Classic or COBRA Avant Garde (p=0.038). Adverse events were similar in MTX-TSU and COBRA Slim (low risk) patients (p=0.871). At W52, 76.0% patients were on DMARD monotherapy, 5.2% used GCs and 7.5% biologicals.

Conclusions

MTX with a moderate-dose GC remission induction scheme (COBRA Slim) seems an effective, safe, low-cost and feasible initial treatment strategy for patients with ERA regardless of their prognostic profile, provided a treat-to-target approach is followed.

Trial registration numbers

EudraCT-number 2008-007225-39 and NCT01172639; Results.

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.

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.

Recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients benefit from a treat-to-target strategy: results from the DREAM registry

Despite considerable evidence on the efficacy and safety of early aggressive treat-to-target (T2T) strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a proportion of patients still fail to reach remission. The goal of this study is to examine remission rates and predictors of remission in a real life T2T cohort of consecutive patients with a recent diagnosis of RA. Baseline demographics, clinical, laboratory and patient-reported variables and 1-year follow-up disease activity data were used from patients with early RA included in the DREAM remission induction cohort II study. Survival analyses and simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine remission rates and significant predictors of achieving remission. A total of 137 recently diagnosed consecutive RA patients were available for this study. During the first year after inclusion, DAS28 remission was achieved at least once in 77.2 % of the patients and the median time to first remission was 17 weeks. None of the examined baseline variables were robustly associated with achieving remission within 1 year and in the multivariable analysis only lower ESR (p = 0.005) remained significantly associated with achieving fast remission within 17 weeks. During the first year of their disease a high proportion of recently diagnosed RA patient achieved remission, with only a small percentage of patients needing bDMARD therapy. Combined with the absence of baseline predictors of remission, this suggests that clinicians in daily clinical practice may focus on DAS28 scores only, without needing to take other patients characteristics into account.

Serum survivin predicts responses to treatment in active rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis from the SWEFOT trial

BACKGROUND

The identification of biomarkers that predict optimal and individual choices of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis gains increasing attention. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the proto-oncogene survivin might aid in treatment decisions in early rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Serum survivin levels were measured in 302 patients who completed the Swedish pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. Survivin levels > 0.45 ng/mL were considered positive. Based on the survivin status, core set outcomes measuring disease activity, functional disability, as well as global health and pain were evaluated after methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy at 3 months, and at 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Treatment of non-responders was randomly intensified with either a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (triple therapy: MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or by adding antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF).

RESULTS

Antirheumatic treatment resulted in an overall decrease of serum survivin levels. Survivin-positive patients at baseline who initially responded to MTX had a higher risk of disease re-activation (OR 3.21 (95% CI 1.12-9.24), P = 0.032) and failed to improve in their functional disability (P = 0.018) if having continued on MTX monotherapy compared to survivin-negative patients. Ever-smokers who were survivin-positive were less likely to respond to MTX than those who were survivin-negative (OR 1.91 (1.01-3.62), P = 0.045). In survivin-positive patients, triple therapy led to better improvements in disease activity than did MTX + anti-TNF. At 24 months, survivin-positive patients randomized to anti-TNF had a higher risk of active disease than those randomized to triple therapy (OR 3.15 (1.09-9.10), P = 0.037).

DISCUSSION

We demonstrate for the first time that survivin is a valuable serologic marker that can distinguish drug-specific clinical responses in early rheumatoid arthritis through the pragmatic clinical setting of the care-based SWEFOT trial. Although treatment response cannot solely be attributable to survivin status, per protocol sensitivity analyses confirmed the superior effect of triple therapy on survivin-positive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivin-positive patients have poor outcomes if treated with MTX monotherapy. A decrease of survivin levels during treatment is associated with better clinical responses. For survivin-positive patients who fail MTX, triple therapy is associated with better outcomes than anti-TNF therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WHO database at the Karolinska University Hospital: CT20080004 ; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00764725, registered 1 October 2008.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Treat to target in managing inflammatory arthritis

Treating to target has been used in many areas of medicine, including diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease risk. This principle has now been applied to rheumatological conditions, notably inflammatory arthritis. This article discusses the role and importance of this management approach in inflammatory arthritis.

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.

Clinical and Serological Predictors of Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis Are Dependent on Treatment Regimen

Objective.

Early intensive treatment is now the cornerstone for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the era of personalized medicine, when treatment is becoming more individualized, it is unclear from the current literature whether all patients with RA benefit equally from such intensive therapies. We investigated the benefit of different treatment regimens on remission rates when stratified to clinical and serological factors.

Methods.

The Combination Anti-rheumatic Drugs in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CARDERA) trial recruited patients with RA of less than 2 years’ duration who had active disease. The trial compared 4 treatment regimens: methotrexate monotherapy, 2 different double therapy regimens (methotrexate and cyclosporine or methotrexate and prednisolone) and 3-drug therapy. Clinical predictors included age, male sex, and tender joint count (TJC) and serological biomarkers included rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA).

Results.

Patients who were male, over 50 years, had ≥ 6 TJC, were RF-IgM–positive, or ACPA-positive were more likely to achieve remission at 24 months using 3-drug therapy compared to monotherapy (OR 2.99, 4.95, 2.71, 2.54, and 3.52, respectively). There were no differences in response to monotherapy and 3-drug therapy if patients were female, under 50 years, had < 6 TJC, or were seronegative.

Conclusion.

Early intensive regimens have become the gold standard in the treatment of early RA. Our study suggests that this intensive approach is only superior to monotherapy in certain subsets of patients. Although these are unlikely to be the only predictors of treatment response, our study brings us a step closer to achieving personalized medicine in RA.

[Systematic literature research for S1 guidelines on sequential medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]

BACKGROUND

On behalf of the German association of Rheumatology national experts developed guidelines for the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on the EULAR recommendations for the management of RA published in 2010. Current evidence was provided with an update of the systematic literature review (SLR). The methods and results of the SLR are presented in this article.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An update of the EULAR SLR for the medical treatment of RA was performed from January 2009 to August 2011. The SLR assessed all controlled studies dealing with the outcome in clinical aspects, function and structure of disease modifying treatment of RA.

RESULTS

Out of 6,869 screened publications, 138 articles and 56 abstracts were considered in the development of the German guidelines on the treatment of RA. A modified set of recommendations was approved in a consensus of national experts.

CONCLUSION

A systematic literature research provided current evidence for the German recommendations on the sequential medical treatment of RA.

Prevention of joint destruction by tacrolimus in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVES

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the oral calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus was performed in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who had responded poorly to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and factors related to suppression of joint destruction were investigated.

METHODS

The change in the total Sharp score (∆TSS) was assessed by univariate analysis in patients with X-ray films to identify the main determinant of a ∆TSS of <0.5 in week 52. Patients with this factor were then investigated further.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that a baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) level of <1.5 mg/dL was the major determinant of ∆TSS <0.5 at week 52 in the tacrolimus group. Detailed analysis of patients with a baseline CRP of <1.5 mg/dL revealed no significant differences in background factors between the two groups. In week 52, ∆TSS was significantly smaller in the tacrolimus group than in the placebo group (2.67 ± 5.40 vs. 8.05 ± 10.32, respectively, p = 0.017). Both groups had a similar incidence of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding tacrolimus to DMARDs significantly suppressed disease activity and joint destruction in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis, a disease duration ≤3 years, a CRP <1.5 mg/dL, and a poor response to oral DMARDs.

Development of the Paris definition of early Crohn's disease for disease-modification trials: results of an international expert opinion process

We report the findings and outputs of an international expert opinion process to develop a definition of early Crohn's disease (CD) that could be used in future disease-modification trials. Nineteen experts on inflammatory bowel diseases held an international expert opinion meeting to discuss and agree on a definition for early CD to be used in disease-modification trials. The process included literature searches for the relevant basic-science and clinical evidence. A published preliminary definition of early CD was used as the basis for development of a proposed definition that was discussed at the expert opinion meeting. The participants then derived a final definition, based on best current knowledge, that it is hoped will be of practical use in disease-modification trials in CD.

Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Predicting Treatment Response

Objective.

Optimizing therapeutic strategies to induce remission requires an understanding of the initial features predicting remission. Currently no suitable model exists. We aim to develop a remission score using predictors of remission in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We used a dataset from a UK randomized controlled trial that evaluated intensive treatment with conventional combination therapy, to develop a predictive model for 24-month remission. We studied 378 patients in the trial who received 24 months’ treatment. Our model was validated using data from a UK observational cohort (Early RA Network, ERAN). A group of 194 patients was followed for 24 months. Remission was defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score < 2.6. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the associations between remission and potential baseline predictors.

Results.

Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed age, sex, and tender joint count (TJC) were independently associated with 24-month remission. The multivariate remission score developed using the trial data correctly classified 80% of patients. These findings were replicated using ERAN. The remission score has high specificity (98%) but low sensitivity (13%). Combining data from the trial and ERAN, we also developed a simplified remission score that showed that younger men with a TJC of 5 or lower were most likely to achieve 24-month remission. Remission was least likely in older women with high TJC. Rheumatoid factor, rheumatoid nodules, and radiographic damage did not predict remission.

Conclusion.

Remission can be predicted using a score based on age, sex, and TJC. The score is relevant in clinical trial and routine practice settings.

Biologics-based therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains a major clinical problem, but treatments involving biologics have revolutionized its management. They target pathogenically relevant cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor and immune cells such as B cells. In RA, biologics reduce joint inflammation, limit erosive damage, decrease disability, and improve quality of life. Infections are the main risk associated with their use. Because of the high prices of biologics, their cost-effectiveness is a matter of debate. They are mainly coadministered with disease-modifying drugs such as methotrexate when the latter are found to achieve insufficient disease control on their own.

Role of spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

Spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) is a cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase involved in signalling in many of the cells that drive immune inflammation. The development of small molecules that inhibit Syk kinase may change the way we treat disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as well as a range of other inflammatory diseases. Fostamatinib (R-788) is an orally bioavailable small molecule. It is the prodrug of R406, which is a potent Syk inhibitor. Fostamatinib was developed because it has more favourable physiochemical properties. It is rapidly converted to R406 by intestinal enterocytes. It has been evaluated in experimental models of RA, such as collagen-induced arthritis. In these models, fostamatinib suppressed clinical arthritis, bone erosions, pannus formation and synovitis. A phase II programme with fostamatinib has largely been completed. Three key trials have been published, lasting 12-26 weeks and each enrolling 189-457 patients (875 in total). All these trials involved placebo therapy and patients continued to receive methotrexate in addition to active treatment with fostamatinib. The first dose-ranging trial evaluated three treatment doses in RA patients who had not fully responded to methotrexate therapy. The second trial compared two treatment doses in patients who had not responded to methotrexate therapy. The third trial compared a single treatment dose with placebo in patients who had not responded to biological therapy. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) responses. Placebo ACR20 response rates in all three trials were similar (35-38%). All three trials involved one treatment arm receiving fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily; ACR20 responses with this active treatment ranged from 38% to 67%. A meta-analysis of ACR responses in these trials, using responses to the highest dose in each trial for comparisons with placebo therapy in a random effects model, showed a borderline benefit with ACR20 responses. There were more significant differences with ACR50 and ACR70 responses. The reason that this meta-analysis was not more strongly positive is that the third trial, which evaluated patients who had failed to respond to biological treatments, gave negative results. Individual ACR response components, such as changes in swollen joint counts, showed significant differences in the first two trials, but there were no definite treatment benefits in the third trial. Overall, the differences were significant in a meta-analysis of all three trials. The most important adverse reactions were diarrhoea, neutropenia and raised ALT levels, which all showed significant excesses with active treatment compared with placebo. Too few patients have been studied for a definitive safety profile to be known. Overall, the results of the phase II trials were sufficiently encouraging for a phase III programme to be initiated. It will be some years before their definitive results are available.

Canadian Recommendations for Clinical Trials of Pharmacologic Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Inclusion Criteria and Study Design: Table 1

Objective.

Current clinical trial designs for pharmacologic interventions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not reflect the innovations in RA diagnosis, treatment, and care in countries where new drugs are most often used. The objective of this project was to recommend revised entry criteria and other study design features for RA clinical trials.

Methods.

Recommendations were developed using a modified nominal group consensus method. Canadian Rheumatology Research Consortium (CRRC) members were polled to rank the greatest challenges to clinical trial recruitment in their practices. Initial recommendations were developed by an expert panel of rheumatology trialists and other experts. A scoping study methodology was then used to examine the evidence available to support or refute each initial recommendation. The potential influence of CRRC recommendations on primary outcomes in future trials was examined. Recommendations were finalized using a consensus process.

Results.

Recommendations for clinical trial inclusion criteria addressed measures of disease activity [Disease Activity Score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) > 3.2 PLUS ≥ 3 tender joints using 28-joint count (TJC28) PLUS ≥ 3 swollen joint (SJC28) OR C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR > upper limit of normal PLUS ≥ 3 TJC28 PLUS ≥ 3 SJC28], functional classification, disease classification and duration, and concomitant RA treatments. Additional recommendations regarding study design addressed rescue strategies and longterm extension.

Conclusion.

There is an urgent need to modify clinical trial inclusion criteria and other study design features to better reflect the current characteristics of people living with RA in the countries where the new drugs will be used.

[Combination therapy using methotrexate with DMARDs or biologics--current status]

Methotrexate (MTX) is the most frequently used drug in combination treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. DMARD combinations are usually the second step after unsuccessful MTX monotherapy. Evidence-based combinations of MTX+leflunomide, MTX+cyclosporine and triple combination MTX+sulphasalazine+hydroxychloroquine (complemented by glucocorticoids) showed the best results.In the case of insufficient response to the DMARD combination, MTX should be used in combination with a biologic. To date, the most frequent biologic treatment is with TNF inhibitors, but studies have shown that all biologics (with the exception of Anakinra) have comparable success rates. The combination of MTX plus abatacept, MTX plus rituximab and MTX plus tocilizumab are very promising, both clinically and in terms of blocking radiological progression. The efficacy of biological therapy is generally better using MTX combination than monotherapy.The safety of MTX combination treatment with DMARDs is not significantly lower than that of the individual substances; therefore, the required safety controls are also the same.

Advances in the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Over the past 2 decades, the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been revolutionized by advances in the understanding of its pathologic mechanisms and the development of drugs that target them. These newer medications have shown great promise at improving disease outcomes, but they come with notable side effects that can pose long-term treatment challenges and difficulties in the perioperative arena. In this article, the major manifestations of RA and the current medical options for management are discussed. Complications from treatment are then reviewed, and special consideration is given to perioperative medication recommendations.

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is characterised by persistent synovitis, systemic inflammation, and autoantibodies (particularly to rheumatoid factor and citrullinated peptide). 50% of the risk for development of rheumatoid arthritis is attributable to genetic factors. Smoking is the main environmental risk. In industrialised countries, rheumatoid arthritis affects 0·5-1·0% of adults, with 5-50 per 100 000 new cases annually. The disorder is most typical in women and elderly people. Uncontrolled active rheumatoid arthritis causes joint damage, disability, decreased quality of life, and cardiovascular and other comorbidities. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the key therapeutic agents, reduce synovitis and systemic inflammation and improve function. The leading DMARD is methotrexate, which can be combined with other drugs of this type. Biological agents are used when arthritis is uncontrolled or toxic effects arise with DMARDs. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors were the first biological agents, followed by abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Infections and high costs restrict prescription of biological agents. Long-term remission induced by intensive, short-term treatment selected by biomarker profiles is the ultimate goal.

Clinical effectiveness of biologics in clinical practice

TNF inhibitors are currently considered both effective and cost-effective in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly in patients who have not responded fully to methotrexate. There is substantial doubt about the cost-effectiveness of TNF inhibitors as initial treatment for active RA. New data from the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases now question the current consensus in methotrexate failures. The data suggest that in routine clinical practice TNF inhibitors provide only modest incremental benefits over best conventional therapy. If confirmed, these observational studies suggest that the economic argument underpinning the widespread use of TNF inhibitors in established RA is unsustainable.

The loss of health status in rheumatoid arthritis and the effect of biologic therapy: a longitudinal observational study

Introduction

The long-term course of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of health status is not well understood, nor is the degree of effectiveness of biologic therapy in the community. We modeled the progression of loss of health status, and measured incremental costs and effectiveness of biologic therapy in the community.

Methods

We studied change in function and health status in 18,485 RA patients (135,731 observations) at six-month intervals for up to 11 years, including a group of 4,911 patients (59,630 observations) who switched to biologic therapy from non-biologic therapy. We measured the SF-36 Physical Component (PCS) and Mental Component (MCS) Summary scales, the EQ-5D health utility scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability scale; and we calculated treatment and direct medical costs.

Results

RA onset caused an immediate and substantial reduction in physical but not mental health status. Thereafter, the progression of dysfunction in RA was very slow (HAQ 0.016 units and PCS -0.125 units annually), only slightly worse than the age and sex-adjusted US population. We estimated biologic treatment to improve HAQ by 0.29 units, PCS by 5.3 units, and EQ-5D by 0.05 units over a 10-year period. The estimated incremental 10-year total direct medical cost for this benefit was $159,140.

Conclusions

Biologic therapy retards RA progression, but its effect is far less than is seen in clinical trials. In the community, cost-effectiveness is substantially less than that estimated from clinical trial data. The study results represent the incremental benefit of adding biologic therapy to optimum non-biologic therapy.