Cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus conventional combination treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year results of the register-enriched randomised controlled SWEFOT trial

Cost-effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-utility evidence of TNF-a-i treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to estimate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).

METHODS

We selected economic evaluation studies reporting the cost-utility of TNF-a-i compared to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. The results were reported as pooled INB in purchasing power parity-adjusted US dollars, along with 95% confidence intervals. We used GRADE quality assessment to present summaries of evidence and random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize cost-utility of TNF-a-i.

RESULTS

We included 86 studies for systematic review, of which 27 for meta-analysis. TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,129(-6,789 to -1,469)] compared to other DMARDs but with high heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias (p = 0.447). On separate analysis, TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,805(-7,882 to -1,728)] compared to conventional synthetic DMARDs for RA treatment. GRADE assessment indicated very low confidence in pooled cost-utility results and likely presence of risk of bias on the overall ECOBIAS checklist in studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence during the study period, TNF-a-i is not a cost-effective option for treating RA compared to other DMARDs. However, high heterogeneity and low confidence in GRADE quality assessment preclude the results from being generalizable.

Hydroxychloroquine-induced Retinal Toxicity

Long-term use of hydroxychloroquine can cause retinopathy, which may result in severe and progressive visual loss. In the past decade, hydroxychloroquine use has markedly increased and modern retinal imaging techniques have enabled the detection of early, pre-symptomatic disease. As a consequence, the prevalence of retinal toxicity in long-term hydroxychloroquine users is known to be higher than was previously estimated. The pathophysiology of the retinopathy is incompletely characterised, although significant advances have been made in understanding the disease from clinical imaging studies. Hydroxychloroquine retinopathy elicits sufficient public health concern to justify the implementation of retinopathy screening programs for patients at risk. Here, we describe the historical background of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy and summarize its current understanding. We review the utility and limitations of each of the mainstream diagnostic tests used to detect hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. The key considerations towards a consensus on the definition of hydroxychloroquine retinopathy are outlined in the context of what is known of the natural history of the disease. We compare the current screening recommendations for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy, identifying where additional evidence is required, and the management of proven cases of toxicity. Finally, we highlight the areas for further investigation, which may further reduce the risk of visual loss in hydroxychloroquine users.

Economic evaluation of infliximab, synthetic triple therapy and methotrexate in the treatment of newly diagnosed juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of costs and short-term cost-effectiveness of infliximab plus methotrexate (IFX + MTX); triple therapy of hydroxychloquine, sulphasalazine, and methotrexate (TRIPLE); or methotrexate monotherapy (MTX) in patients with new-onset polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

In a prospective multicenter study (ACUTE-JIA), costs and health outcomes of 60 randomized patients with new-onset disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve polyarticular JIA were analyzed during the first year. A mapping algorithm was used to obtain utility values from Child Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ). Wallace criteriae were used to assess clinically inactive disease (CID). Linear regression with non-parametric bootstrapping was used to adjust imbalances at baseline.

RESULTS

Using prices for IFX biosimilar, adjusted annual mean (SD) costs of treatment (€) were 21,164 (4158), 12,136 (5286), and 18,300 (8635) on IFX + MTX, TRIPLE, and MTX, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IFX + MTX as compared with TRIPLE or MTX were 3442 € or 678 € per additional month spent in CID. Mean (SD) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for IFX + MTX, TRIPLE and MTX were 0.755 (0.065), 0.725 (0.062), and 0.686 (0.124). ICER for IFX + MTX vs TRIPLE was 294,433 €, and for IFX + MTX vs MTX 31,435 € per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In short-term, biosimilar IFX + MTX can be considered cost-effective when compared with MTX alone. TRIPLE was cost-effective when compared with MTX and showed cost advantage when compared with IFX + MTX. Cost per time spent in CID showed similar results than ICER evaluations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was primarily registered with the Ethical Board of Helsinki District University Hospital ( https://www.hus.fi ), clinical trial number 211864, and later with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01015547.

Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of triple therapy in preventing relapse in rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized controlled trial (ESCoRT study)

BACKGROUND

Biological agents, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), have been widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and greatly improved goal achievement. The aim of this study was to investigate whether conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) combination was better in reducing relapse than methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and more cost-effective than continuing TNFi plus MTX in RA patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) with TNFi and MTX therapy.

METHODS

RA patients who failed to csDMARDs received an induction therapy of MTX plus TNFi for maximally 12 weeks. Those achieving LDA in 12 weeks were randomly assigned at a 1:1:1 ratio into three groups: (A) adding hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks; (B) maintaining TNFi and MTX for 60 weeks; and (C) maintaining TNFi and MTX for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks. The primary outcome was relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were enrolled for induction therapy and 67 patients who achieved LDA within 12 weeks were randomized, with 24, 21, and 22 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The relapse rates of groups A and B during the entire 60 weeks were comparable [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 7/20 (35.0%), χ2 = 0.475, P = 0.491], however, significantly lower than that of group C [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 5.517, P = 0.019; 7/20 (35.0%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 11.035, P = 0.004, respectively]. Taking RMB 100,000 Yuan as the threshold of willingness to pay, compared to MTX monotherapy (group C), both TNFi maintenance and triple csDMARDs therapies were cost-effective, but triple csDMARDs therapy was better.

CONCLUSION

For RA patients who have achieved LDA with TNFi and MTX, csDMARDs triple therapy was a cost-effective option in favor of reducing relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320630.

Methodological aspects of design, analysis and reporting of studies with work participation as an outcome domain in patients with inflammatory arthritis: results of two systematic literature reviews informing EULAR points to consider

Objective

To summarise the methodological aspects in studies with work participation (WP) as outcome domain in inflammatory arthritis (IA) and other chronic diseases.

Methods

Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in key electronic databases (2014–2019): search 1 focused on longitudinal prospective studies in IA and search 2 on SLRs in other chronic diseases. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data covering pre-defined methodological areas.

Results

In total, 58 studies in IA (22 randomised controlled trials, 36 longitudinal observational studies) and 24 SLRs in other chronic diseases were included. WP was the primary outcome in 26/58 (45%) studies. The methodological aspects least accounted for in IA studies were as follows (proportions of studies positively adhering to the topic are shown): aligning the studied population (16/58 (28%)) and sample size calculation (8/58 (14%)) with the work-related study objective; attribution of WP to overall health (28/58 (48%)); accounting for skewness of presenteeism/sick leave (10/52 (19%)); accounting for work-related contextual factors (25/58 (43%)); reporting attrition and its reasons (1/58 (2%)); reporting both aggregated results and proportions of individuals reaching predefined meaningful change or state (11/58 (16%)). SLRs in other chronic diseases confirmed heterogeneity and methodological flaws identified in IA studies without identifying new issues.

Conclusion

High methodological heterogeneity was observed in studies with WP as outcome domain. Consensus around various methodological aspects specific to WP studies is needed to improve quality of future studies. This review informs the EULAR Points to Consider for conducting and reporting studies with WP as an outcome in IA.

The efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate triple therapy in preventing relapse among patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving clinical remission or low disease activity: the study protocol of a randomized controlled clinical Trial (ESCoRT study)

Background

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi) is effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who fail to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Because of high cost, the discontinuation is common but often lead to disease relapse. The study aims to investigate, if the combination therapy of csDMARDs is more effective in reducing disease relapse than methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and more cost-effective than continuing TNFi and MTX.

Methods

It will be a two-stage trial. In the first stage, all RA patients who failed to csDMARDs treatment [disease activity score 28 (DAS28)-CRP > 3.2] will receive MTX plus TNFi for no more than 12 weeks. Patients achieving DAS28-CRP < 3.2 during the first stage will be randomized into three groups at 1:1:1 ratio: (A) add hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) for the first 12 weeks and then remove TNFi but continue other treatments for the next 48 weeks; (B) maintain TNFi + MTX for 60 weeks; and (C) maintain TNFi + MTX for the first 12 weeks and then remove TNFi but continue MTX monotherapy for the next 48 weeks. The primary outcome will be disease relapse (DAS28-CRP increases by at least 0.6 and > 3.2). Secondary outcomes will include the incremental cost per reducing 1 case of relapse; patient reported intolerance to the treatment; adverse events; change of mean disease activity measured by DAS28, clinical disease activity index (CDAI) and simplified disease activity index (SDAI); the proportion of modified Sharp score increase < 0.3; ultrasound-detected remission in hands; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and health related quality of life [the five-level EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and short form-6D (SF-6D)].

Discussion

The aim of this trail will be to seek effective treatment options of preventing relapse of RA. The results of the current study may provide an instructive recommendation for more economical application of TNFi treatment in RA.

Trial registration NCT, NCT02320630. Registered on 16 December 2014. https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/LoginUser?ts=3&cx=-jg9qo2.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Effect on Costs and Quality-adjusted Life-years of Treat-to-target Treatment Strategies Initiating Methotrexate, or Tocilizumab, or Their Combination in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of initiating tocilizumab (TCZ) ± methotrexate (MTX) versus initiating MTX as treat-to-target treatment strategies over 5 years in early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Data on resource use were collected with questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and yearly thereafter, and were converted to costs using Dutch reference prices. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using the EQ5D5L, with utility based on Dutch tariff or estimated by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. To account for missing cost data and QALY data and for sample uncertainty, first bootstraps (10,000 samples) were obtained. Second, single imputation using chained equations nested within these bootstrap samples was performed. An economic evaluation was performed for TCZ + MTX and TCZ, compared to MTX, as initial treatment in a treat-to-target strategy from a healthcare and societal perspective over 5 years. Several sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Mean differences in QALY were small and not significant (TCZ + MTX vs MTX: 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13; TCZ vs. MTX: -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.11). Limited savings in indirect nonhealthcare costs and productivity loss costs (for TCZ only) were observed, but these did not compensate for the higher medication costs. Sensitivity analyses did not materially change these findings, although lower-priced TCZ, or reserving TCZ as initial therapy for prognostically unfavorable RA patients, improved cost effectiveness considerably but did not individually lead to a strategy being cost effective.

CONCLUSION

Based on our analyses, early initiation of TCZ + MTX is not cost effective compared to MTX initiation in a step-up treat-to-target treatment strategy over 5 years in early RA patients.

Healthcare use, work loss and total costs in incident and prevalent Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: results from a nationwide study in Sweden

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on population-wide assessment of cost in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

AIM

To estimate the societal cost of actively treated CD and UC in Sweden.

METHODS

We identified 10 117 prevalent CD and 19 762 prevalent UC patients, aged ≥18 years on 1 January 2014 and 4028 adult incident CD cases and 8659 adult incident UC cases (2010-2013) from Swedish Patient Register. Each case was matched to five population comparators. Healthcare costs were calculated from medications, outpatient visits, hospitalisations and surgery. Cost of productivity losses was derived from disability pension and sick leave.

RESULTS

The mean annual societal costs per working-age patient (18-64 years) with CD and UC were $22 813 (vs $7533 per comparator) and $14 136 (vs $7351 per comparator), respectively. In patients aged ≥65 years, the mean annual costs of CD and UC were $9726 and $8072 vs $3875 and $4016 per comparator, respectively. The majority of cost for both CD (56%) and UC (59%) patients originated from productivity losses. Higher societal cost of working-age CD patients as compared to UC patients was related to greater utilisation of anti-TNF (22.2% vs 7.4%) and increased annual disability pension (44 days vs 25 days). Among incident CD and UC patients, the mean total cost over the first year per patient was over three times higher than comparators.

CONCLUSION

In Sweden, the societal cost of incident and prevalent CD and UC patients was consistently two to three times higher than the general population.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Biological Treatment Sequences for Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Previously Treated with Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review (SLR) had two objectives: to analyse published economic evaluations of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously treated with DMARDs and to assess the quality of those that included sequences of treatments.

METHODS

We performed an SLR on PubMed, Central, Cochrane, and French databases from January 2000 to December 2018. The search focused on cost-effectiveness/utility/benefit analyses. We extracted data on treatment sequences, outcomes (e.g. quality-adjusted life year) and choices of economic evaluation methods (e.g. model type, type of analysis, and method of utility estimation). We analysed the improvement of methods by comparing two sub-periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2018). The quality of reporting and the quality of the methods were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and a set of eight key aspects for a reference case for economic evaluation of bDMARDs based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and Drummond checklists. Data extraction and study assessment were performed independently by two health economists.

RESULTS

From the 824 records identified in the initial search, 51 publications were selected. Of these, 31 included sequences. Individual models such as discrete-event simulations were used in over two-fifths (22/51, 43%) of the selected studies. Few studies (7/51, 14%) used utility scores based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D). Estimation of hospitalization costs was described in only approximately one-third of studies (19/51). Loss of quality of life (QoL) related to adverse events such as tuberculosis and pneumonia was included in one-tenth (5/51, 10%) of the studies. It was difficult to compare the results of the economic evaluations (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) due to the high heterogeneity of studies in terms of disease stage, data sources, inputs, and methods of health outcome assessment used. For identified studies including sequences, the CHEERS assessment of reporting quality showed insufficient reporting of uncertainty analyses and utility weights in more than a third of the studies (11/31, 35%; 9/25, 36%). An in-depth assessment of the quality of the studies revealed that only seven, mostly conducted during the sub-period 2010-2018, addressed the majority of methodological quality assessment issues such as the simulation of patient sequence pathways, the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of comparative effectiveness, the choice of treatment sequence, and rules for switching.

CONCLUSION

Our SLR identified a lack of high-quality evaluations assessing bDMARD sequences, although some improvements were made in the reporting and modelling of patients' pathways in studies published after 2010. In order to improve economic evaluations of RA, clear health technology assessment guidance on RA health-related QoL instruments must be provided, and data including long-term disease progression must be made available.

Management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2019 updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology

The expanding range of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), from conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), biosimilar bDMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, has improved patient outcomes but increased the complexity of treatment decisions. These updated consensus recommendations from the Hong Kong Society of Rheumatology provide guidance on the management of RA, with a focus on how to integrate newly available DMARDs into clinical practice. The recommendations were developed based on evidence from the literature along with local expert opinion. Early diagnosis of RA and prompt initiation of effective therapy remain crucial and we suggest a treat-to-target approach to guide optimal sequencing of DMARDs in RA patients to achieve tight disease control. Newly available DMARDs are incorporated in the treatment algorithm, resulting in a greater range of second-line treatment options. In the event of treatment failure or intolerance, switching to another DMARD with a similar or different mode of action may be considered. Given the variety of available treatments and the heterogeneity of patients with RA, treatment decisions should be tailored to the individual patient taking into consideration prognostic factors, medical comorbidities, drug safety, cost of treatment, and patient preference.

Indirect Costs of Rheumatoid Arthritis Depending on Type of Treatment-A Systematic Literature Review

The economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on society is high. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of therapy. Biological DMARDs are reported to prevent disability and improve quality of life, thus reducing indirect RA costs. We systematically reviewed studies on the relationship between RA and indirect costs comparing biological treatment with standard care. Studies, economic analyses, and systematic reviews published until October 2018 through a MEDLINE search were included. A total of 153 non-duplicate citations were identified, 92 (60%) were excluded as they did not meet pre-defined inclusion criteria. Sixty-one articles were included, 17 of them (28%) were reviews. After full-text review, 28 articles were included, 11 of them were reviews. Costs associated with productivity loss are substantial; in several cases, they may represent over 50% of the total. The most common method of estimation is the Human Capital method. However, certain heterogeneity is observed in the method of estimating, as well as in the resultant figures. Data from included trials indicate that biological therapy is associated with improved labor force participation despite an illness, in which the natural course of disease is defined by progressive work impairment. Use of biological DMARDs may lead to significant indirect cost benefits to society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD.

METHODS

We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument).

RESULTS

In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

Conceptual model for the health technology assessment of current and novel interventions in rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this study was to evaluate current approaches to economic modeling in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and propose a new conceptual model for evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of RA interventions. We followed recommendations from the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research-Society of Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM) Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. The process involved scoping the decision problem by a working group and drafting a preliminary cost-effectiveness model framework. A systematic literature review (SLR) of existing decision-analytic models was performed and analysis of an RA registry was conducted to inform the structure of the draft conceptual model. Finally, an expert panel was convened to seek input on the draft conceptual model. The proposed conceptual model consists of three separate modules: 1) patient characteristic module, 2) treatment module, and 3) outcome module. Consistent with the scope, the conceptual model proposed six changes to current economic models in RA. These changes proposed are to: 1) use composite measures of disease activity to evaluate treatment response as well as disease progression (at least two measures should be considered, one as the base case and one as a sensitivity analysis); 2) conduct utility mapping based on disease activity measures; 3) incorporate subgroups based on guideline-recommended prognostic factors; 4) integrate realistic treatment patterns based on clinical practice/registry datasets; 5) assimilate outcomes that are not joint related (extra-articular outcomes); and 6) assess mortality based on disease activity. We proposed a conceptual model that incorporates the current understanding of clinical and real-world evidence in RA, as well as of existing modeling assumptions. The proposed model framework was reviewed with experts and could serve as a foundation for developing future cost-effectiveness models in RA.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of Biqi capsule in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Biqi capsule is a Traditional Chinese Medicine preparation for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinical studies have indicatedthat its effect may be more beneficial than that of Western medicine. The present study aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of Biqi capsule alone or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared with MTX alone for treating RA by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. A systematic literature search of studies published until March 2017 was performed. References from relevant studies were screened to obtain additional articles. The results were independently evaluated for relevance, and full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Out of 558 citations that were initially retrieved, a total of 5 studies comprising 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias of these trials was generally unclear or high. Meta-analysis indicated that Biqi capsule had better effects on C-reactive protein [standardized mean difference (SMD), −7.05; 95% CI -(10.77–3.33)] and tender joint count [SMD, −3.02; 95% CI, -(3.81–2.22)] and fewer adverse effects (AEs) than MTX [relative risk (RR), 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.43]. Biqi capsule plus MTX was superior to MTX in terms of the total effect (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06–1.28), rheumatoid factor [SMD, −12.54; 95% CI, -(16.87–8.20)], swollen joint count [SMD, −1.50; 95% CI, -(1.99–1.01)], score of joint swelling [SMD −2.07; 95% CI, -(2.76–1.38)], tender joint count [SMD, −2.16; 95% CI, -(2.86–1.47)] and score of joint tenderness [SMD, −4.69; 95% CI, -(5.92–3.47)]. There was no difference in AEs between Biqi capsule plus MTX and MTX (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34–1.50). In conclusion, the present study indicated that compared with MTX, Biqi capsule plus MTX appeared to have more benefits but that Biqi capsule alone was not better for RA patients than MTX. In the other words, Biqi capsule plus MTX is more effective and has fewer AEs compared to MTX. However, the trials selected in the present meta-analysis have various limitations, including the lack of blinding and the short duration of the treatment; therefore, the conclusions are not sufficiently definitive. More randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the use of Biqi capsule for managing RA.

Cost-utility of COBRA-light versus COBRA therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the COBRA-light trial

Objective

To evaluate if COmbinatie therapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy is cost-effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with COBRA therapy.

Methods

This economic evaluation was performed next to the open-label, randomised non-inferiority COBRA-light trial in 164 patients with early RA. Non-responders to COBRA or COBRA-light received etanercept (50 mg/week) for 3-6 months. The societal perspective analysis took medical direct, non-medical direct and indirect costs into account. Costs were measured with patient cost diaries for the follow-up period of 52 weeks. Bootstrapping techniques estimated uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios, presented in cost-effectiveness planes.

Results

164 patients were randomised to either COBRA or COBRA-light strategy. At week 52, COBRA-light proved to be non-inferior to COBRA therapy on all clinical outcome measures. The results of the base-case cost-utility analysis (intention-to-treat analyses) revealed that COBRA-light strategy is more expensive (k€9.3 (SD 0.9) compared with COBRA (k€7.2 (SD 0.8)), but the difference in costs were not significant (k€2.0; 95% CI -0.3 to 4.4). Also, both strategies produced similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. In a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, in which costs of etanercept were assumed to be provided as prescribed according to protocol, both arms had much higher costs: COBRA-light: k€11.5 (8.3) compared with k€8.5 (6.8) for COBRA, and the difference in costs was significant (k€2.9; 0.6 to 5.3).

Conclusions

In the base-case cost-utility analysis, the two strategies produced similar QALYs for similar costs. But it is anticipated that if protocol had been followed correctly, the COBRA-light strategy would have been more costly due to additional etanercept costs, for a limited health gain. Given the limited added benefit and high costs of starting etanercept in the presence of low disease activity in our trial, such a strategy needs better justification than is available now.

Trial registration number

55552928, Results.

A compensating income variation approach to valuing 34 health conditions in Iceland

Using data from an Icelandic health-and-lifestyle survey carried out in 2007, 2009, and 2012, we employ a compensating income variation (CIV) approach to estimate the monetary value sufficient to compensate individuals for the presence of various sub-optimal health conditions. This method is inexpensive and easy on subjects and has been applied to several desiderata that do not have revealed market prices. The CIV literature is, however, still limited in its application to health and thus information about its suitability is limited. With the aim of shedding light on the method́s appropriateness we thus provide a broad-view analysis including a spectrum of diseases and conditions that can be held up against more traditionally used methods. CIV for physical conditions vary greatly, but paralysis, fibromyalgia, chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, urinary incontinence, severe headache and thyroid disease were among those consistently associated with substantial well-being reductions. Mental-health results using this method should be read with caution. The societal value of health interventions is multidimensional, including for example increased productivity in the population. However, one of the main positive aspects of increased health is undoubtedly the increased well-being of the treated subjects. Such quality-of-life effects should thus preferably be taken into account. For this reason, information on the value individuals place on recovery from various sub-optimal health conditions is useful when it comes to prioritizing scarce capital in the health sector. It is therefore vital to estimate the importance individuals place on various health states and hold them up against each other. Furthermore, this paper has scientific value as it sheds light on attributes of a potentially useful method in health evaluations.

Brief Report: Intensification to Triple Therapy After Treatment With Nonbiologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States From 2009 to 2014

OBJECTIVE

Several trials suggest that triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have similar efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was undertaken to investigate intensification to triple therapy after initial nonbiologic prescription among patients with RA.

METHODS

The use of triple therapy among patients with RA in 2009-2014 was evaluated using US insurance claims data. Patients with a health care visit for RA and an initial nonbiologic DMARD prescription were included. Frequencies of intensification to triple therapy or a biologic DMARD and rates of intensification per 6-month time period were calculated. Using Cox regression, we evaluated whether sociodemographic, temporal, geographic, clinical, and health care utilization factors were associated with intensification to triple therapy. Among those patients whose therapy was intensified, we investigated factors associated with triple therapy use by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for intensification to triple therapy in relation to various clinical and demographic factors were calculated.

RESULTS

There were 24,576 patients with a mean ± SD age of 50.3 ± 12.3 years, and 78% were female. During the study period, treatment was intensified to biologic DMARDs in 2,739 patients (11.1%) compared to 181 patients (0.7%) whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy. There was no significant change in triple therapy use across calendar years. Patients whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy were more likely to receive glucocorticoids (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.41-2.60]) compared to patients who did not use glucocorticoids and were more likely to use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-1.99 versus no NSAID use). Among those patients whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy or biologic DMARDs, factors significantly associated with triple therapy use included older age, US region (with the highest odds for triple therapy use in the West and lowest odds for triple therapy use in the Northeast), glucocorticoid use, and lower number of outpatient visits within 180 days of initial nonbiologic DMARD prescription.

CONCLUSION

Despite reports published during the study period suggesting equivalent efficacy of triple therapy and biologic DMARDs for RA, the use of triple therapy was infrequent and did not increase over time in this large nationwide study.

Infliximab Versus Conventional Combination Treatment and Seven-Year Work Loss in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Randomized Swedish Trial

Objective

To compare long‐term work loss in methotrexate‐refractory early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients randomized to the addition of infliximab or conventional combination treatment.

Methods

This study was a multicenter, 2‐arm, parallel, randomized, active‐controlled, open‐label trial. RA patients with <1‐year symptom duration were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden between 2002–2005. Patients who did not achieve low disease activity after 3–4 months of methotrexate therapy were randomized to the addition of infliximab or conventional combination treatment with sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine. Yearly sick leave and disability pension days >7 years after randomization were retrieved from nationwide registers kept by the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.

Results

Of 210 working‐age patients, 109 were randomized to infliximab (mean age 48.4 years, 73% women) and 101 to conventional treatment (mean age 48.7 years, 77% women). The year before randomization, the mean number of annual work days lost was 127 in the infliximab arm and 118 in the conventional treatment group (mean difference 9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) −23, 39]). Compared to the year before randomization, the mean changes at 7 years were −25 days in the infliximab and −26 days in the conventional treatment group (adjusted mean difference 10 [95% CI −25, 46]). The cumulative mean for work‐loss days was 846 in the infliximab group and 701 in the conventional treatment group (adjusted mean difference 104 [95% CI −56, 284]).

Conclusion

Long‐term work loss improved significantly in early RA patients randomized to infliximab plus methotrexate or conventional combination therapy. No difference was detected between strategies, and the level of work‐loss days remained twice that observed in the general population.

CT-P13 in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The first biosimilar infliximab, CT-P13 infliximab-dyyb was approved in 2013 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and in 2016 by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for 4 years. Areas covered: CT-P13 with the three brand names on the market has highly similar efficacy and safety profiles but lower price than originator infliximab and are approved in more than 80 countries. One of the most important determinants of the implementation of CT-P13 in the treatment of RA is scientific evidence from clinical studies and real-world pharmacovigilance data. Here, we review all available clinical data supporting the similarity of CT-P13 to originator infliximab in its clinical efficacy and safety for the treatment of RA and related arthritis. In addition, we consider the role of CT-P13 in therapeutic strategies for RA treatment. Expert commentary: With its highly similar efficacy and safety profile to originator infliximab and its lower price, CT-P13 is expected to be very useful in RA treatment, whether it is applied earlier or switched from originator infliximab or other biologics. Future educational initiatives will be important to overcome misunderstandings about biosimilars and to improve the implementation of CT-P13.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

A Multi-Biomarker Disease Activity Score and the Choice of Second-Line Therapy in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate Failure

Objective

To investigate whether the Multi‐Biomarker Disease Activity (MBDA) score predicts optimal add‐on treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were inadequate responders to MTX (MTX‐IRs).

Methods

We analyzed data from 157 MTX‐IRs (with a Disease Activity Score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28‐ESR] >3.2) from the Swedish Pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial who were randomized to receive triple therapy (MTX plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) versus MTX plus infliximab. The MBDA score as a predictor of the subsequent DAS28‐based response to each second‐line treatment was analyzed at randomization with the Breslow‐Day test for 2 × 2 groups, using both validated categories (low [<30], moderate [30–44], and high [>44]) and dichotomized categories (lower [≤38] versus higher [>38]).

Results

Among the 157 patients, 12% had a low MBDA score, 32% moderate, and 56% high. Of those with a low MBDA score, 88% responded to subsequent triple therapy, and 18% responded to MTX plus infliximab (P = 0.006); for those with a high MBDA score, the response rates were 35% and 58%, respectively (P = 0.040). When using 38 as a cutoff for the MBDA score (29% patients with lower scores versus 71% with higher scores), the differential associations with response to triple therapy versus MTX plus infliximab were 79% versus 44% and 36% versus 58%, respectively (P = 0.001). Clinical and inflammatory markers had poorer predictive capacity for response to triple therapy or MTX plus infliximab.

Conclusion

In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX, the MBDA score categories were differentially associated with response to subsequent therapies. Thus, patients with post‐MTX biochemical improvements (lower MBDA scores) were more likely to respond to triple therapy than to MTX plus infliximab. If confirmed, these results may help to improve treatment in RA.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Pharmacotherapy Pearls for the Geriatrician: Focus on Oral Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Including Newer Agents

Providing safe and effective pharmacotherapy to the geriatric patients with rheumatological disorders is an ongoing struggle for the rheumatologist and geriatrician alike. Cohesive communication and partnership can improve the care of these patients and subvert adverse outcomes. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and leflunomide, and the newest oral agent for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib, have distinctive monitoring and adverse effect profiles. This article provides the general practitioner or geriatrician with clinically relevant pearls regarding the use of these interventions in older patients.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Validity of data collected in BIOREG, the Austrian register for biological treatment in rheumatology: current practice of bDMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis in Austria

Background

The purpose of the present study was to check the validity of data collected in BIOREG, the Austrian register for biological treatment in rheumatology, and to elucidate eventual differences with respect to disease activity (DA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on established biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) before inclusion into the register (EST) and beginners at the time point of inclusion (NEW) after 1 year of treatment.

Methods

RA patients with a complete follow-up of 1 year in BIOREG were divided into EST and NEW and compared with respect to DA, remission rates, concomitant synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and glucocorticoid therapy (GC) at baseline and after 1-year follow-up. Safety concerns are listed. Descriptive statistics are applied.

Results

For 346 RA patients (284 EST, 62 NEW) out of 970 RA patients included into BIOREG, a full data set for a 1-year follow-up was available. No differences in DA were observed after 1 year as expressed by DAS28 or RADAI-5, and small differences as expressed by remission rates according to DAS28, RADAI-5 or Boolean criteria (namely approximately 1/2, 1/3 to 1/4 and 1/4 to 1/5 of the patients respectively). Sixty-four adverse events (AEs) were noted in 56 (20 %) of EST and 20 in 19 (31 %) of NEW patients. Malignancy occurred in four patients. After 1 year, 48 % of EST patients but only 16 % of NEW patients were on bDMARD monotherapy.

Conclusion

Regarding DA, the date collected in BIOREG appeared to be valid. After 1 year of bDMARD therapy, all patients, whether EST or NEW, achieved a similar level of DA. AEs occurred more frequently during the early phase of bDMARD treatment. Austrian rheumatologists initiate bDMARD therapy in patients with lower disease levels than in other European countries, leading to high remission rates.

Cost-effectiveness of biologic compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Register study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) for RA using real-world data from Finnish registers.

METHODS

RA patients starting their first bDMARD and comparator patients using csDMARDs during 2007-11 were obtained from the National register of biologic treatments in Finland and the Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences between bDMARD and csDMARD users. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and based on the register of biologic treatments in Finland and Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records, whereas the direct costs were obtained from relevant Finnish national registers. Patients were followed up for 2 years, and both costs and effectiveness for the second year were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with 95% CI was calculated based on bootstrapped mean costs and effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of 1581 RA patients meeting study inclusion criteria, 552 bDMARD and 220 csDMARD users were included in analyses after matching. Mean costs for bDMARDs and csDMARDs were €55 371 and €24 879, while mean effectiveness was 1.23 and 1.20 QALYs, respectively. Consequent ICER was €902 210/QALY. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The high incremental cost and the small, non-significant difference in effectiveness resulted in high ICER, suggesting that bDMARDs are not cost-effective. Regardless of matching, latent confounders may introduce bias to the results.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Synovial fluid detection in intra-articular injections using a bioimpedance probe (BIP) needle-a clinical study

Intra-articular glucocorticoid injections are the recommended treatment for active arthritis, but accurate positioning of the needle may be challenging. Inexperienced physicians might decide not to inject because an unsuccessful injection impairs clinical outcome and may lead to complications; however, choosing not to inject may impair or delay the best possible treatment. Here, we address this problem by introducing a novel Bioimpedance Probe (BIP) Needle-guidance method that was tested in a clinical study. The BIP Needle was utilized for detection of synovial fluid. It measures real-time bioimpedance spectra and identifies when the needle tip is in contact with the synovial fluid. Injections into 80 joints with active arthritis were performed by an experienced rheumatologist using the BIP Needle. The location of the BIP Needle was ensured by aspiration of synovial fluid, absence of resistance during injection, and/or using real-time ultrasound imaging. Sensitivity and specificity of the device for synovial fluid detection were 86 % (CI 75-93 %) and 85 % (CI 74-92 %), respectively. The BIP Needles showed high spatial resolution and differentiated the synovial fluid from the surrounding tissues. However, lack of synovial fluid, anatomic variability, and intra-articular structures challenged the technology. The BIP Needles provided adequate results in intra-articular injections. Performance of the device was good even in small joints, which may be the most difficult for inexperienced physicians. Further performance improvement can be expected when more data is collected for mathematical models. Overall, this novel method showed potential to be used in real-time needle guidance.

Small-molecule inhibitors for autoimmune arthritis: success, failure and the future

Treatment of patients with aggressive autoimmune arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is a considerable challenge for physicians, particularly rheumatologists. Because of the nature of autoimmune arthritis, effective and complete suppression of disease activity has been the primary therapeutic goal. Although currently available disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can successfully control the disease progression in a large proportion of patients, the benefit/risk ratio is not very much satisfied. The introduction of biologic agents such as anti-tumor necrosis factor-α, anti-interleukin-6, and anti-CD20 brings significant help to those patients with an inadequate response to treatment with DMARDs. In considering the limitation of currently available DMARDs and biologics, the development of new DMARDs, small-molecule inhibitors (SMIs), has recently emerged. In the past few years, a great volume of knowledge has been revealed from the experience of examining the usefulness of several SMIs for therapeutics of autoimmune arthritis. This paper addresses the up-to-date knowledge regarding autoimmune arthritis, therapeutics, findings from recently developed SMIs and the benefits and drawbacks of the development of SMIs. In addition, perspectives on the future development of SMIs for autoimmune arthritis will be described and discussed.