Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs

Survival Benefit of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Node-Positive Breast Cancer With a 21-Gene Recurrence Score of 14 to 25: A Real-World Study Based on the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Method

INTRODUCTION

The role of recurrence score in predicting the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node-positive breast cancer remains uncertain. We studied chemotherapy usage in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes and a recurrence score (RS) of 25 or lower to assess changes in clinical practice based on the RxPONDER trial.

METHODS

A retrospective study using the SEER database identified female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, and an RS of 25 or lower between 2010 and 2015. Patients were divided into nonchemotherapy and chemotherapy groups, with propensity score weighting to balance clinicopathologic factors.

RESULTS

Among 7965 patients, 5774 (72.5%) were in the nonchemotherapy group, while 2191 (27.5%) were in the chemotherapy group. Median follow-up was 39 months. Breast cancer accounted for 67 deaths, while 128 deaths were due to other causes. The weighted 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 95.7% for the nonchemotherapy group and 97.2% for the chemotherapy group. For high-risk patients, the weighted 5-year OS rates were 95.2% and 97.0% for the nonchemotherapy and chemotherapy groups, respectively, with a significant absolute difference of 1.8% (P = .014). Multivariate analysis showed a significant difference in weighted hazard ratios for OS between the nonchemotherapy and chemotherapy groups in high-risk patients (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.86). However, there were no significant differences in weighted hazard ratios for lower-risk patients, and similar results were observed for breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

CONCLUSION

Patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, assessed by a 21-gene RS of 0 to 25, exhibited heterogeneous prognosis. Adjuvant chemotherapy provided a significant survival benefit, especially for patients with RS of 14 to 25, particularly those with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 2 to 3 positive lymph nodes.

Janus kinase inhibitors effectively improve pain across different disease activity states in rheumatoid arthritis

Pain remains one of the most difficult-to-treat domains in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical trials, the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) have demonstrated good efficacy in pain relief. Aim of our study was to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of JAKis in improving pain in patients with RA in different states of baseline disease activity. A monocentric prospective cohort of 181 RA patients starting treatment with JAKis was studied. Pain was evaluated on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Clinically meaningful improvements over 24 weeks were defined as follows: proportion of patients achieving ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% pain relief, and remaining pain ≤ 20 or ≤ 10 mm. Results were analysed after stratification for baseline inflammatory activity; patients with swollen joints and C-reactive protein ≤ 1 at treatment start were considered pauci-inflammatory. Proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% pain improvement at 24 weeks was 61.4%, 49.3% and 32.9%. Furthermore, 40.6% and 28.5% of the patients achieved thresholds of remaining pain equivalent to mild pain or no/limited pain. Pain improvements were more evident in patients naive to previous biologics, although nearly 30% of multiple failures achieved VAS ≤ 20 mm. No significant differences were observed in relation to monotherapy. Pauci-inflammatory patients at treatment start achieved good outcomes, with 40.4% experiencing ≥ 70% pain improvement, and 35.7% VAS ≤ 10 mm. JAKis show efficacy in pain relief in real life. The improvement of painful symptoms also in those patients with limited objective inflammation may open new perspectives on the management of difficult-to-treat RA.

Tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor-related immune disorders

Biotechnological monoclonal antibodies and receptor antagonists capable of targeting specific inflammatory actors, such as cytokines, cytokines receptors, co-stimulatory molecules or leukocyte populations, have emerged as an alternative to conventional therapies for treating systemic inflammatory diseases with immune pathogenesis. However, there is no doubt that, with a frequency that is not exceptionally high but also not negligible, immunotherapies can favour the development of systemic and organ-specific immune-mediated disorders. It has become increasingly evident that interference with a specific immune pathway may favour the activation of opposing compensatory signalling, which may exacerbate underlying subclinical disorders or cause immune-mediated diseases completely different from the underlying disease. The 'compensatory immunological switch' has emerged primarily in patients treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) -α inhibitors, the first biological drugs approved for treating systemic inflammatory diseases with immune pathogenesis. In this Review, we describe the clinical features and predisposing factors of the main TNF-α inhibitor-related immune disorders, organising them into subclinical serological autoimmunity, autoimmune disorders other than those for which TNF-α inhibitors are indicated, and paradoxical reactions. We also discuss the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms and precautions for use in the therapeutic management of these patients. Better understanding of the complex phenomenon of the 'compensatory immunological switch', which TNF-α inhibitors and other biological drugs might trigger, can help not only appropriately managing immune-mediated disorders, but also better interpreting the heterogeneity of the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying certain chronic inflammatory conditions that, although different from each other, are arbitrarily placed in the context of overly generic nosological entities.

Real-world evidence of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Spain

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the real-world data on the use of tofacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Spain. Sixteen retrospective studies carried out in Spain between 2019 and 2021 have been analyzed, considering patients' characteristics, and treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety. In those studies, approximately 511 patients received tofacitinib during the study period. They were predominantly women (mean age: 48-61 years). The percentage of patients receiving tofacitinib as monotherapy ranged between 20.0% and 67.9%. Only five studies reported the combined use of corticosteroids (42.0-84.5% of patients), with a mean dose varying from 1.8 to 7.2 mg. A wide range of patients (36.0-85.7%) had failed a previous biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. The most frequent reason for treatment discontinuation was the lack of efficacy, and the most common adverse event described was herpes zoster infection. Real-world studies complement clinical trials by adding efficacy and safety data in real-world settings to the benefit/risk profile of the drug. The profile of RA patients receiving tofacitinib in Spain has similarities with other real-world studies conducted in other countries.

Comparison of Adalimumab to Other Targeted Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Few studies compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but multiple comparisons are not available. This Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis evaluated which targeted therapy is more likely to achieve ACR50 response with good safety at 24 weeks of treatment in RA. A systematic literature review was conducted for head-to-head phase 3 RCTs that compared adalimumab to other targeted therapies in combination with methotrexate (MTX) or as monotherapy to treat RA patients, and searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov. The outcomes of interest were ACR50 response and withdrawals due to adverse events at 24 weeks. WinBUGS 1.4 software (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK) was used to perform the analyses, using a random effect model. Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. The most favorable SUCRA for the ACR50 response rate at 24 weeks of treatment in combination with MTX was ranked by upadacitinib, followed by baricitinib, tofacitinib and filgotinib. As monotherapy, the highest probability was ranked by tocilizumab followed by sarilumab. No significant differences in safety profile among treatment options were found. Jak-inhibitors in combination with MTX and interleukin-6 antagonism as monotherapy showed the highest probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment. None of assessed targeted therapies were associated to risk of withdrawal due to adverse events. Key messages: Direct and indirect comparison between adalimumab and other targeted therapies demonstrated some differences in terms of efficacy that may help to drive RA treatment. Jak-inhibitors and interleukine-6 antagonists ranked as first in the probability to achieve ACR50 response after 24 weeks of treatment in combination with methotrexate or monotherapy, respectively.

Treatment Patterns and Pharmacoutilization in Patients Affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italian Settings

This study aimed to evaluate the treatment patterns and pharmacoutilization of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world settings in Italy. This retrospective observational analysis was based on administrative databases of selected Italian entities. All adult patients with RA diagnosis confirmed by ≥1 discharge diagnosis of RA (ICD-9-CM code = 714.0) or an active exemption code (006.714.0) were enrolled in 2019. Two cohorts were created: one included patients prescribed baricitinib, the other those prescribed biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Overall, 47,711 RA patients were identified, most of them without DMARD prescription. As a first-line prescription, 43.2% of patients were prescribed conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), 5.2% bDMARDs and 0.3% baricitinib. In 2019, 82.6% of csDMARD users continued with the same DMARD category, 15.9% had a bDMARD, while 1.5% had baricitinib as second-line therapy. Overall, 445 patients used baricitinib during 2019. During follow-up, baricitinib was prescribed as monotherapy to 31% of patients, as cotreatment with csDMARDs and corticosteroids to 27% of patients, with corticosteroids to 28% of patients and with csDMARDs to 14% of patients. In line with previous findings, a trend of bDMARD undertreatment was observed. The treatment patterns of baricitinib patients could help to better characterize patients eligible for new therapeutic options that will be available in the future.

Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical guidelines do not provide strong recommendations for the choice of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), and only limited evidence is available on factors influencing rheumatologist treatment decisions. We aimed to describe therapeutic preferences after the failure of a first-line strategy of MTX in simulated cases of patients with RA.

Methods

Fictional but realistic case-vignettes (n = 64) of patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX were developed with a combination of RA-poor prognostic factors and comorbidities. Physicians were presented with eight vignettes and chose the most and least appropriate therapeutic option from the following six options randomly proposed 3 by 3: (1) replacing MTX with another csDMARD; (2) combining MTX with one or more csDMARDs; (3) adding a bDMARD of either TNF inhibitors (TNFi), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA), or rituximab (RTZ). A total of 1605 complete case vignettes were produced and randomly assigned to a representative sample of French rheumatologists. For each vignette, whenever a treatment was preferred, one point was incremented for this treatment; if this treatment was the least desired, one point was removed. Preferences were elicited using a normalized best–worst score.

Results

Two hundred and four French rheumatologists participated in the study with each vignette being assessed 20–28 times for a completion rate of 94%. TNFi was the first-choice strategy (80% of vignettes), except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity, where ABA was the first preference (85%). TCZ came third in 83% of the cases. Other options were never preferred and repeatedly yielded negative scores.

Conclusions

We observed a conservative trend with TNFi as the main therapeutic choice for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Preference for bDMARD-based strategies increased with the number of RA-poor prognosis factors, whereas an increase in the number of comorbidities resulted in an increased preference for ABA. Understanding clinical decision-making will be particularly important as the therapeutic landscape for RA continues to evolve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.

Retention rate of a second line with a biologic DMARD after failure of a first-line therapy with abatacept, tocilizumab, or rituximab: results from the Italian GISEA registry

OBJECTIVES

EULAR recommendations do not suggest which biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be preferred after failure of a first bDMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, few data are available regarding the effectiveness of a second-line bDMARD after failure of abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab (RTX). The aim of this study was to analyze the retention rate of a second line with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other mechanisms of action (MoAs), after the failure of either RTX, TCZ, or ABA.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-eight RA patients from the Italian GISEA registry were included in the study. RTX was the first bDMARD in 18% of patients, ABA in 45.7%, and TCZ in 36.3%, while the second bDMARD was a TNFi (group 1) in 129 patients and an agent with a different MoA (group 2) in 149.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 68), 129 patients discontinued their treatment; patients of group 1 discontinued the treatment more frequently than patients of group 2 (p<0.001) with retention rates of 33.6±5.7% and 63.6±4.6% after 104 weeks for group 1 and group 2, respectively (p<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the mechanism of action was the only predictor for the maintenance in therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, ABA, RTX, and TCZ seem to maintain a good retention rate also when used as a second-line therapy, suggesting their use after the failure of a non-TNFi as first-line therapy. However, specifically designed studies are needed to evaluate the more appropriate therapeutic strategies in RA, according to the first-line drug, including new targeted synthetic DMARDs. Key Points • A large proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients fail the first biologic DMARD. • Few data are available about the efficacy of biologic DMARD after the failure of a non-TNF inhibitor. • Abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab seem to maintain a good retention rate after the failure of a first-course therapy with a non-TNF inhibitor.

Tofacitinib Persistence in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare medication persistence of tofacitinib with persistence of injectable biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective new-user cohort study of patients with RA in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases. New users of tofacitinib or bDMARD were identified between November 2012 and December 2016. Persistence, in number of years, was the time between treatment initiation and the earliest occurrence of discontinuation or switching from the medication prescribed at cohort entry. Persistence of tofacitinib was compared with bDMARD persistence using Cox proportional hazards regression with adjustment for high-dimensional propensity scores. Similar methods were used for an analysis of post first-line therapy in patients who switched to tofacitinib from a bDMARD.

RESULTS

New tofacitinib users (n = 1031) were 56 years of age, on average, and 82% were women. New bDMARD users (n = 17,803) were 53 years of age, on average, and 78% were women. New tofacitinib users had shorter medication persistence (median 0.81 yrs) compared to bDMARD patients (1.02 yrs). After adjustment, the HR for discontinuation of tofacitinib compared with bDMARD was 1.14 (95% CI 1.05-1.25). Patients who switched to tofacitinib from a bDMARD had longer persistence than patients who switched to a bDMARD (adjusted HR for discontinuation 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Further research is warranted to understand the reasons for discontinuation of tofacitinib despite its ease of administration and to understand the observed differences between switchers and new users.

Targeting Granulocyte-Monocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Signaling in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Future Prospects

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic, autoimmune disease that affects joints and extra-articular structures. In the last decade, the management of this chronic disease has dramatically changed with the introduction of several targeted mechanisms of action, such as tumor necrosis factor-α inhibition, T-cell costimulation inhibition, B-cell depletion, interleukin-6 blockade, and Janus kinase inhibition. Beyond its well-known hematopoietic role on the proliferation and differentiation of myeloid cells, granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is a proinflammatory mediator acting as a cytokine, with a proven pathogenetic role in autoimmune disorders such as RA. In vitro studies clearly demonstrated the effect of GM-CSF in the communication between resident tissue cells and activated macrophages at chronic inflammation sites, and confirmed the elevation of GM-CSF levels in inflamed synovial tissue of RA subjects compared with healthy controls. Moreover, a pivotal role of GM-CSF in the perception of pain has been clearly confirmed. Therefore, blockade of the GM-CSF pathway by monoclonal antibodies directed against the cytokine itself or its receptor has been investigated in refractory RA patients. Overall, the safety profile of GM-CSF inhibitors seems to be very favorable, with a particularly low incidence of infectious complications. The efficacy of this new mechanism of action is comparable with main competitors, even though the response rates reported in phase II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) appear to be numerically lower than the response rates observed with other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs already licensed for RA. Mainly because of this reason, nowadays the development program of most GM-CSF blockers for RA has been discontinued, with the exception of otilimab, which is under evaluation in two phase III RCTs with a head-to head non-inferiority design against tofacitinib. These studies will likely be useful for better defining the potential role of GM-CSF inhibition in the therapeutic algorithm of RA. On the other hand, the potential role of GM-CSF blockade in the treatment of other rheumatic diseases is now under investigation. Phase II trials are ongoing with the aim of evaluating mavrilimumab for the treatment of giant cell arteritis, and namilumab for the treatment of spondyloarthritis. Moreover, GM-CSF inhibitors have been tested in osteoarthritis and diffuse subtype of systemic sclerosis. This review aims to describe in detail the available evidence on the GM-CSF blocking pathway in RA management, paving the way to a possible alternative treatment for RA patients. Novel insights regarding the potential use of GM-CSF blockers for alternative indications will be also addressed.

Noninferiority Trials to Evaluate Drug Effects in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

The increased availability of highly effective treatments in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitates a reexamination of study designs evaluating new treatments. We undertook this study to discuss possible specifications and considerations of noninferiority (NI) trials assessing drug effects in RA.

METHODS

We focused on the use of approved tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as potential active controls and reviewed previous placebo-controlled studies. We summarized the similarities in baseline characteristics and study design of the historical placebo-controlled studies used. After performing meta-analyses to estimate the effects of TNFi on symptoms, physical function, and radiographic progression in RA, we proposed NI margins and evaluated the feasibility of NI trials in this therapeutic setting.

RESULTS

We determined that an NI trial comparing an experimental treatment to a TNFi using the symptomatic end point of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria response can feasibly provide evidence of a treatment effect, with a 12% absolute difference as one possible appropriate NI margin. For change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score, reasonable margins range from 0.10 to 0.12. In evaluating radiographic progression, an appropriate margin and the corresponding feasibility of the trial are dependent on the selected active control and the expected variability in progression.

CONCLUSION

Active-controlled studies in RA with justified NI margins can provide persuasive evidence of treatment effects on symptomatic, functional, and radiographic end points. Such studies can also provide reliable, controlled safety data and relevant information for treatment decisions in clinical practice. Thus, we recommend considering NI designs in future clinical trials in RA.

Reasons for Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Cessation and Persistence of Second-line Treatment in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Dataset

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence about the reasons why Australian rheumatologists cease biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to assess (1) the primary failure rate for first-line treatment, and (2) the persistence on second-line treatments in patients who stopped first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective, noninterventional study of patients with RA enrolled in the Australian Optimising Patient outcome in Australian RheumatoLogy (OPAL) dataset with a start date of b/tsDMARD between August 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017. Primary failure was defined as stopping treatment within 6 months of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Data from 7740 patients were analyzed; 6914 patients received first-line b/tsDMARD. First-line treatment was stopped in 3383 (49%) patients; 1263 (37%) were classified as primary failures. The most common reason was "lack of efficacy" (947/2656, 36%). Of the patients who stopped first-line TNFi, 43% (1111/2560) received second-line TNFi, which resulted in the shortest median time to stopping second-line treatment (11 months, 95% CI 9-12) compared with non-TNFi. The longest second-line median treatment duration after first-line TNFi was for patients receiving rituximab (39 months, 95% CI 27-74).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients who stopped first-line TNFi therapy received another TNFi despite evidence for longer treatment persistence on second-line b/tsDMARD with a different mode of action. Lack of efficacy was recorded as the most common reason for making a switch in first-line treatment of patients with RA.

The Giants (biologicals) against the Pigmies (small molecules), pros and cons of two different approaches to the disease modifying treatment in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease that, if untreated, can lead to disability and reduce the life expectancy of affected patients. Over the last two decades the improvement of knowledge of the pathogenetic mechanisms leading to the development of the disease has profoundly changed the treatment strategies of RA through the development of biotechnological drugs (bDMARDs) directed towards specific pro-inflammatory targets involved in the RA network. To date, the therapeutic armamentarium for RA includes ten bDMARDs able to produce the depletion B-cells, the blockade of three different pro-inflammatory cytokines (tumour necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-6 and interleukin-1), or the inhibition of T-cell co-stimulation. The introduction of these new compounds has dramatically improved outcomes in the short and long term, although still a significant proportion of patients are unable to reach or maintain the treatment target over time. The identification of the fundamental role of Janus kinases in the process of transduction of the inflammatory signal within the immune cells has recently provided the opportunity to use the new pharmacological class of small molecules for the therapy of RA, further increasing the number of treatment options. In this review the PROS and CONS of these two drug classes will be discussed, trying to provide the evidence currently available to make the right choice based on the analysis of the efficacy and safety profile of the different drugs on the market and close to marketing.

Upadacitinib and filgotinib: the role of JAK1 selective inhibition in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease characterized by joint involvement, extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, and increased mortality. In the last few decades, the management of RA has been dramatically improved by the introduction of a treat-to-target approach aiming to prevent joint damage progression. Moreover, the increasing knowledge about disease pathogenesis allowed the development of a new drug class of biologic agents targeted on immune cells and proinflammatory cytokines involved in RA network. Despite the introduction of several targeted drugs, a significant proportion of RA patients still fail to achieve the clinical target; so, more recently the focus of research has been shifted toward the inhibition of kinases involved in the transduction of the inflammatory signal into immune cells. In particular, two Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, baricitinib and tofacitinib, have been licensed for the treatment of RA as a consequence of a very favorable profile observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted across different RA subpopulations. Both these new compounds are active on the majority of four JAK family members (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2), whereas the most recent emerging approach is directed toward the development of JAK1 selective inhibitors (upadacitinib and filgotinib) with the aim to improve the safety profile by minimizing the effects on JAK3 and, especially, JAK2. In this narrative review, we discuss the rationale for JAK inhibition in RA, with a special focus on the role of JAK1 selective blockade and a detailed description of available data from the results of clinical trials on upadacitinib and filgotinib.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world data: differences and similarities to untangle literature data

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold-standard of medical evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. However, the need to minimize bias and ensure the correct design to explore the study aims often affects the generalizability of results. As a consequence, the evidence derived from the most rigorous research strategy available is not always representative of the real-world settings for which this evidence is ultimately intended. Observational studies, in contrast, although affected by a number of potential confounders, can more effectively capture treatment characteristics and safety issues that had not been identified by previous RCTs, owing to the short duration of follow-up or highly selective inclusion criteria. The aim of this review is to provide a comparative summary of the main advantages and pitfalls of RCTs and real-world data, emphasizing the need for a constant integration of all available levels of evidence to provide the best care for patients.

Heterogeneity in Comparisons of Discontinuation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Meta-Analysis

Objective

We did a systematic review of studies comparing discontinuation of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, pooled hazard ratios and assessed clinical and methodological heterogeneity.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE until June 2015 for pairwise hazard ratios for discontinuing infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab from cohorts of RA patients. Hazard ratios were pooled using inverse variance weighting and random effects estimates of the combined hazard ratio were obtained. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was assessed using the between-subgroup I-square statistics and meta-regression.

Results

Twenty-four unique studies were eligible and large heterogeneity (I-square statistics > 50%) was observed in all comparisons. Type of data, location, and order of treatment (first or second line) modified the magnitude and direction of discontinuation comparing infliximab with either adalimumab or etanercept; however, some heterogeneity remained. No effect modifier was identified when adalimumab and etanercept were compared.

Conclusion

Heterogeneity in studies comparing discontinuation of TNF antagonists in RA is partially explained by type of data, location, and order of treatment. Pooling hazard ratios for discontinuing TNF antagonists is inappropriate because largely unexplained heterogeneity was demonstrated when random effect estimates were calculated.

The role of methotrexate as combination therapy with etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis: Retrospective analysis of a local registry

Objective

In a real-life setting, to analyse retrospectively the effects of different methotrexate regimens on etanercept efficacy during the first year of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Demographic characteristics, clinical parameters and treatment data from patients with RA receiving the first-line biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, etanercept, as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate were analysed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. The study population was stratified into three groups according to the level of concomitant methotrexate therapy: no methotrexate, low-dose methotrexate (≤ 10 mg/week) or high-dose methotrexate (>10 mg/week).

Results

Clinical response at 6 and 12 months and clinical outcome at 12 months were significantly better in patients concomitantly treated with high-dose methotrexate. Furthermore, this regimen was associated with the lowest discontinuation rate, suggesting a favourable safety profile.

Conclusion

These data confirm, in a real-life setting, the importance of methotrexate as a combination therapy with etanercept and suggest that the minimal effective dose of methotrexate is >10 mg/week.

Review of head-to-head study designs in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Treatment options available to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are ever-changing, and understanding the similarities and differences of efficacy and safety between different RA therapies is of key importance in order to facilitate treatment decisions by both the patient and physician. Very few head-to-head, peer-reviewed trials exist; instead, evidence for efficacy of treatments is often ascertained from placebo-controlled trials, registries and meta-analyses, which often do not sufficiently address the relative effectiveness of two medications.

METHODS

A targeted review of indirect comparison methods, and ongoing and published clinical studies assessing the efficacy and safety, and the comparative efficacy and safety of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA.

RESULTS

Critical elements that should be considered when designing head-to head trials are described using examples of true head-to-head and placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The appropriate use of head-to-head trial designs is demonstrated by reviewing different examples of well-designed clinical trials, and an overview is presented of the challenges associated with indirect comparisons. This review also examines the use of studies comparing therapies to placebo, highlighting the difficulties associated with the interpretation of these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

For comparative trials to contribute to evidence-based decision making in the treatment of RA, patient populations and treatment regimens as similar as possible to those used in routine clinical practice should be employed and the trial should be appropriately designed to answer the specific question asked.