The BSRBR-RA at 15 years

American College of Rheumatology and Food and Drug Administration Summit: Summary of the Meeting May 17-18, 2022

The American College of Rheumatology and the US Food and Drug Administration co-sponsored a public meeting in May 2022 about challenges in the clinical development of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), focusing on innovative clinical trial designs, outcome measures, and data collection methods. Recommendations include early dose-ranging studies and use of active comparators. Challenges and opportunities in assessing long-term safety by leveraging real-world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data are discussed, along with insights from European registries and the evolving role of real-world evidence and artificial intelligence in regulatory evaluations. Endpoints for assessing disease activity and outcome measures used in RA and PsA trials are explored, emphasizing challenges in defining remission, assessing clinical response, and evaluating structural progression. The need for outcome measures that better reflect treatment targets and the potential of advanced imaging in future trials are highlighted. Challenges with placebo-controlled trials in RA are discussed and use of non-inferiority clinical trial design, in which new drugs are evaluated with active comparators, is proposed. Pragmatic trials in RA and PsA, employing decentralized approaches, are highlighted for their real-world relevance and administrative efficiencies. Strategies for identifying at-risk populations for RA and the challenges of using EHRs and insurance claims data in drug development are discussed. Registry data and digital health technologies show promise in bridging the gap between clinical trials and real-world effectiveness.

Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is generally considered the most reliable source of estimates of relative treatment effects. However, in the last few years, there has been interest in using non-randomized studies to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials. Several meta-analytical models have been proposed to this end. Such models mainly focussed on estimating the average relative effects of interventions. In real-life clinical practice, when deciding on how to treat a patient, it might be of great interest to have personalized predictions of absolute outcomes under several available treatment options. This paper describes a general framework for developing models that combine individual patient data from randomized controlled trials and non-randomized study when aiming to predict outcomes for a set of competing medical interventions applied in real-world clinical settings. We also discuss methods for measuring the models' performance to identify the optimal model to use in each setting. We focus on the case of continuous outcomes and illustrate our methods using a data set from rheumatoid arthritis, comprising patient-level data from three randomized controlled trials and two registries from Switzerland and Britain.

OPTIMISE: MS study protocol: a pragmatic, prospective observational study to address the need for, and challenges with, real world pharmacovigilance in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

The power of 'real world' data to improve our understanding of the clinical aspects of multiple sclerosis (MS) is starting to be realised. Disease modifying therapy (DMT) use across the UK is driven by national prescribing guidelines. As such, the UK provides an ideal country in which to gather MS outcomes data. A rigorously conducted observational study with a focus on pharmacovigilance has the potential to provide important data to inform clinicians and patients while testing the reliability of estimates from pivotal trials when applied to patients in the UK.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The primary aim of this study is to characterise the incidence and compare the risk of serious adverse events in people with MS treated with DMTs. The OPTIMISE:MS database enables electronic data capture and secure data transfer. Selected clinical data, clinical histories and patient-reported outcomes are collected in a harmonised fashion across sites at the time of routine clinical visits. The first patient was recruited to the study on 24 May 2019. As of January 2021, 1615 individuals have baseline data recorded; follow-up data are being captured and will be reported in due course.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has ethical permission (London City and East; Ref 19/LO/0064). Potential concerns around data storage and sharing are mitigated by the separation of identifiable data from all other clinical data, and limiting access to any identifiable data. The results of this study will be disseminated via publication. Participants provide consent for anonymised data to be shared for further research use, further enhancing the value of the study.

The BSR-PsA: study protocol for the British Society for Rheumatology psoriatic arthritis register

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) presents a unique clinical challenge. Affecting joints, skin, nails, and other organs, it is associated with various comorbidities and has a significant impact on quality of life, social participation and working life. While biologic and other targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs and tsDMARDs) have revolutionised therapy, questions remain about the long-term safety of these agents, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in the real-world clinical setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

The British Society for Rheumatology Psoriatic Arthritis Register (BSR-PsA) is a prospective registry of patients with PsA, recruited from across Great Britain, who are (a) commencing a bDMARD/tsDMARD; or (b) naïve to all bDMARDs/tsDMARDs. Ethical approval was given by the NHS West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (reference: 18/WS/0126). Clinical data are extracted from participants' medical records, including symptom onset and diagnosis, joint, skin and nail symptoms, dactylitis and enthesitis. Physical measurements (height, weight and 66/68 joint counts) and a detailed drug history are taken. Participants are also asked to complete questionnaires comprising instruments relating to general health and quality of life, axial disease, sleep and fatigue, impact of disease, functional status, mental health, other symptoms, and occupational status. The study duration is 5 years in the first instance, and all participants are followed up annually until the end of the study. Participants commencing a bDMARD/tsDMARD are also followed up three and six months after the start of therapy. Disease activity, including C-reactive protein, is assessed at each visit; and participants from some centres are invited to donate blood and urine samples for the creation of a biobank.

DISCUSSION

Complementing data from randomised trials, results from this study will contribute to the evidence base underpinning the clinical management of psoriatic arthritis. Various analyses will determine the effectiveness and safety of bDMARDs/tsDMARDs in the real-world, will examine the clinical and biological predictors of treatment response, and will provide real-world data on the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, as well as providing informative data important to patients such as quality of life and occupational outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The full study protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/jzs8n ).

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel^®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade^®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia^®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor^® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care.

LIMITATIONS

There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales.

FUTURE WORK

Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Identifying rheumatic disease patients at high risk and requiring shielding during the COVID-19 pandemic

Rheumatology teams care for patients with diverse, systemic autoimmune diseases who are often immunosuppressed and at high risk of infections. The current COVID-19 pandemic has presented particular challenges in caring for and managing this patient group. The office of the chief medical officer (CMO) for England contacted the rheumatology community to provide expert advice on the identification of extremely vulnerable patients at very high risk during the COVID-19 pandemic who should be 'shielded'. This involves the patients being asked to strictly self-isolate for at least 12 weeks with additional funded support provided for them to remain at home. A group of rheumatologists (the authors) have devised a pragmatic guide to identifying the very highest risk group using a rapidly developed scoring system which went live simultaneous with the Government announcement on shielding and was cascaded to all rheumatologists working in England.

Established and Emerging Immunological Complications of Biological Therapeutics in Multiple Sclerosis

Biologic immunotherapies have transformed the treatment landscape of multiple sclerosis. Such therapies include recombinant proteins (interferon beta), as well as monoclonal antibodies (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, daclizumab, rituximab and ocrelizumab). Monoclonal antibodies show particular efficacy in the treatment of the inflammatory phase of multiple sclerosis. However, the immunological perturbations caused by biologic therapies are associated with significant immunological adverse reactions. These include development of neutralising immunogenicity, secondary immunodeficiency and secondary autoimmunity. These complications can affect the balance of risks and benefits of biologic agents, and 2018 saw the withdrawal from the market of daclizumab, an anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody, due to concerns about the development of severe, unpredictable autoimmunity. Here we review established and emerging risks associated with multiple sclerosis biologic agents, with an emphasis on their immunological adverse effects. We also discuss the specific challenges that multiple sclerosis biologics pose to drug safety systems, and the potential for improvements in safety frameworks.

Prediction of Real-World Drug Effectiveness Prelaunch: Case Study in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Decision makers often need to assess the real-world effectiveness of new drugs prelaunch, when phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but no other data are available.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a method to predict drug effectiveness prelaunch and to apply it in a case study in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

The approach 1) identifies a market-approved treatment ( S) currently used in a target population similar to that of the new drug ( N); 2) quantifies the impact of treatment, prognostic factors, and effect modifiers on clinical outcome; 3) determines the characteristics of patients likely to receive N in routine care; and 4) predicts treatment outcome in simulated patients with these characteristics. Sources of evidence include expert opinion, RCTs, and observational studies. The framework relies on generalized linear models.

RESULTS

The case study assessed the effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), combined with conventional DMARDs, compared to conventional DMARDs alone. Rituximab (RTX) combined with conventional DMARDs was identified as treatment S. Individual participant data from 2 RCTs and 2 national registries were analyzed. The model predicted the 6-month changes in the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) accurately: the mean change was -2.101 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.494) in the simulated patients receiving TCZ and conventional DMARDs compared to -1.873 (SD = 1.220) in retrospectively assessed observational data. It was -0.792 (SD = 1.499) in registry patients treated with conventional DMARDs.

CONCLUSION

The approach performed well in the RA case study, but further work is required to better define its strengths and limitations.

Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.

CONCLUSION

In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health

Evidence-based practice is an important component of health care service delivery. However, there is a tendency, embodied in tools such as Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, to focus principally on the classification of study design, at the expense of a detailed assessment of the strengths and limitations of the individual study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and in particular the classical “explanatory” RCT, have a privileged place in the hierarchy of evidence. However, classical RCTs have substantial limitations, most notably a lack of generalizability, which limit their direct applicability to clinical practice implementation. Pragmatic and observational studies can provide an invaluable perspective into real-world applicability. This evidence could be used more widely to complement ideal-condition results from classical RCTs, following the principle of triangulation. In this review article, we discuss several types of pragmatic and observational studies that could be used in this capacity. We discuss their particular strengths and how their limitations may be overcome and provide real-life examples by means of illustration.