Improved health outcomes with etanercept versus usual DMARD therapy in an Asian population with established rheumatoid arthritis

Efficacy and safety of drugs for psoriasis patients with mental disorders: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The emergence of biological agents and small molecule drugs has revolutionized the treatment landscape for psoriasis, yet there remains a lack of systematic reviews elucidating the efficacy and safety of drugs for patients with psoriasis and mental disorders (MDs). The aim was to systemically evaluate the efficacy and safety of FDA-approved psoriasis drugs on MD symptoms and MD drugs on psoriasis symptoms.

METHODS

We conducted comprehensive literature searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 24, 2024, identifying 116 relevant studies for inclusion.

RESULTS

Our review encompasses 62 clinical trials and 54 case reports/series. Analyses of clinical trials revealed a positive impact of psoriasis drugs on MD, with notable exceptions including lithium and benzodiazepine receptor agonists, which exhibited adverse effects on psoriasis. Furthermore, analysis of case reports/series highlighted the efficacy of drugs such as apremilast, etanercept, infliximab, and secukinumab in ameliorating MD symptoms, contrasting with detrimental effects observed with methotrexate (MTX), cyclosporine, adalimumab, and secukinumab. Notably, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors and interleukin inhibitors demonstrated superior efficacy compared to conventional treatments. In the anxiety group, secukinumab showed the largest effective size as assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety (HADS-A) index; In the depression group, ixekizumab showed the largest effective size assessed by the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology - Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) index.

LIMITATIONS

The extracted data cannot be meta-analyzed, as the measurement scale is not uniform.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides robust evidence regarding treatment options for individuals with psoriasis and MD, emphasizing the potential benefits of specific drugs in managing both conditions concurrently.

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions: a systematic review informing the 2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

OBJECTIVE

To identify the best evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions in reducing fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and to summarise their safety in the identified studies to inform European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

METHODS

Systematic review of adults with I-RMDs conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook. Search strategy ran in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, PEDro, OTseeker and PsycINFO. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials were eligible. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and synthesis performed by two reviewers independently and in duplicate. Data pooled in statistical meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 4151 records, 455 were selected for full-text review, 99 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 19 RCTs were included in meta-analyses. Adalimumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 12 and 52 weeks in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (n=3 and 2 RCTs; mean difference (MD)= -3.03, p<0.001; MD=-2.25, p=0.03, respectively). Golimumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-5.27, p<0.001), baricitinib (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-4.06, p<0.001), sarilumab (n=2 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.15, p<0.001), tocilizumab (n=3 RCTs; 24 weeks: MD=-3.69, p<0.001) and tofacitinib (n=3 RCTs; 12 weeks: MD=-4.44, p<0.001) were also superior to placebo in reducing fatigue in RA. A dose/effect relationship was observed for sarilumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib. In spondyloarthritis (excluding psoriatic arthritis), secukinumab was superior to placebo in reducing fatigue at 16 weeks (n=2 RCTs; MD=-4.15, p<0.001), with a dose/effect relationship also observed. The narrative results of the RCTs not included in the meta-analysis indicated that several other pharmacological interventions were efficacious in reducing fatigue, with reassuring safety results.

CONCLUSIONS

Several pharmacological interventions are efficacious and generally safe for managing fatigue in people with I-RMDs.

Targeting Underlying Inflammation in Carcinoma Is Essential for the Resolution of Depressiveness

In modern clinical practice and research on behavioral changes in patients with oncological problems, there are several one-sided approaches to these problems. Strategies for early detection of behavioral changes are considered, but they must take into account the specifics of the localization and phase in the course and treatment of somatic oncological disease. Behavioral changes, in particular, may correlate with systemic proinflammatory changes. In the up-to-date literature, there are a lot of useful pointers on the relationship between carcinoma and inflammation and between depression and inflammation. This review is intended to provide an overview of these similar underlying inflammatory disturbances in both oncological disease and depression. The specificities of acute and chronic inflammation are considered as a basis for causal current and future therapies. Modern therapeutic oncology protocols may also cause transient behavioral changes, so assessment of the quality, quantity, and duration of behavioral symptoms is necessary to prescribe adequate therapy. Conversely, antidepressant properties could be used to ameliorate inflammation. We will attempt to provide some impetus and present some unconventional potential treatment targets related to inflammation. It is certain that only an integrative oncology approach is justifiable in modern patient treatment.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

Anti-TNF-α Compounds as a Treatment for Depression

Millions of people around the world suffer from psychiatric illnesses, causing unbearable burden and immense distress to patients and their families. Accumulating evidence suggests that inflammation may contribute to the pathophysiology of psychiatric disorders such as major depression and bipolar disorder. Copious studies have consistently shown that patients with mood disorders have increased levels of plasma tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α. Given these findings, selective anti-TNF-α compounds were tested as a potential therapeutic strategy for mood disorders. This mini-review summarizes the results of studies that examined the mood-modulating effects of anti-TNF-α drugs.

Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes of Adalimumab for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea

Objective

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive, autoimmune disorder that impairs patients' overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL) In this study, we evaluated the effect of adalimumab in Korean patients with active RA on HRQOL.

Methods

Patients included in the study had moderate to severe active RA that did not respond to conventional drugs with a Disease Activity Score of 28 joints >32 and were biologics-naïve All patients received adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week and were followed for 24 weeks The primary endpoint was the change in baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score at week 24 Secondary endpoints were changes in the EuroQol 5-dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) baseline score and Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) domain scores at weeks 12 and 24 and change in baseline HAQ-DI score at week 12.

Results

In total, 91 Korean patients were included Ninety-three percent of patients were in high disease activity with a baseline mean DAS28 value of 61 within all patients The mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were -046 at week 12 and∼067 at week 24 (p<00001) Additionally, EQ-5D-3L score at weeks 12 and 24 had significantly improved (p<00001) compared to baseline SF-36 at weeks 12 and 24 had significantly improved (p<00001, p=00001) compared to baseline.

Conclusion

Treatment with adalimumab resulted in significant improvement in HAQ-DI, EQ-5D-3L, and SF-36 scores at 12 and 24 weeks in Korean RA patient.

Is improvement of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis a proper effect of biologics?

Background. The objective of our present study is to assess the relation between persistent fatigue and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and its functional impact and to determine if the positive effect of biologics on fatigue is due to good disease response or to a different pathway.Methods. A study cohort of patients with established RA was conducted. We included patients who had been prescried a biologic after at least failure of one conventional synthetic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug synthetic (csDMARDs). At baseline, patients had a moderately to highly active disease. Demographic characteristics, disease activity and functional impact were assessed by disease activity score (DAS28CRP) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) scores. Fatigue was evaluated by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale questionnaire (FACIT-F). Patients were examined before initiating biotherapy, then after three months and six months.Results. Thirty women with RA, with a mean age of 52.5 years, were included. At baseline, 57% received anti-TNFα: Etanercept (n = 9), Adalimumab (n = 6), Infliximab (n = 2) and 43% received Rituximab. Good Eular response was obtained in 80% of patients at the third month and 97% of patients at the sixth month. In the analytic study, a significant amelioration after 3 months of biotherapy was found in both disease response (DAS28CRP) and fatigue (FACIT-F), respectively (p = 0.01, p<0.001 and p<0.001). The disease activity decreased significantly also after sixth month (p = 0.01, p<0.001 and p = 0.012). In the linear multivariate analysis, the regression of visual analogic pain (VAS pain) was the only predictors of the improvement of fatigue.Conclusion. Biologics contribute to improve fatigue in patients with established RA and this effect seems to be independent from the clinical efficacy of this treatment.

Real-world evidence of the impact of adalimumab on work productivity and sleep measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

Objective:

Our aim was to evaluate the effect of adalimumab on work productivity measures, overall activity impairment, and sleep quality in patients with active moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated in routine care settings in Greece and determine factors associated with work impairment and sleep disturbance.

Methods:

Patients with active moderate to severe RA (n = 184), PsA (n = 166), and AS (n = 150) were enrolled in this 24-month, prospective, observational study at 80 hospital outpatient clinics and private practices throughout Greece. Patients received adalimumab alone or in combination with standard antirheumatic therapies according to routine care. Work productivity and sleep were assessed through two patient-reported outcome measures: the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment–General Health questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS). Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated to assess the association of work impairment and sleep disturbances with disease activity scores.

Results:

In the overall population, adalimumab significantly lowered absenteeism [mean (95% confidence interval) reduction, 18.9% (13.3–24.5%); n = 100]; presenteeism [40.0% (33.8–46.3%); n = 98], overall work productivity impairment [46.8% (40.4–53.2%); n = 94], activity impairment [47.0% (44.3–49.6); n = 421], and the MOS-SS sleep problems index [31.6 (29.5–34.1); n = 421] after 24-month treatment (p < 0.001). Significant improvements were also noted across the RA, PsA, and AS subpopulations (p < 0.05). Improvements in overall work impairment and sleep disturbance positively correlated with improvements in disease activity measures.

Conclusion:

Adalimumab improves work productivity and sleep problems while lowering disease activity in patients with moderate to severe RA, PsA, and AS managed in real-world settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Opinercept Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy for Drug-Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of opinercept for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients undergoing disease- modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) therapy.

Patients and methods

A total of 98 patients with active RA (17 males, 81 females; mean age 58.6±12.2 years; range, 24.3 to 85.3 years) were randomized into opinercept plus DMARDs (OD group) or placebo plus DMARDs (PD group), in a 24-week treatment period. Primary outcome was American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Other exploratory endpoints included ACR50, ACR70 and disease activity score-28 (DAS28) at week 12 and 24, tender/swollen joint counts, pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein level. Incidence of adverse events (AEs), vital signs and physical findings, and laboratory test results were also evaluated.

Results

Patients in OD group showed significantly higher achievement percentage of ACR20 at week 24 than the PD group (76.6% vs. 30.3%, p<0.001). The evaluation of DAS28 was significantly improved in OD patients compared to PD patients at weeks 12 and 24. Most of the occurred AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to study treatments.

Conclusion

Opinercept concurrent with DMARDs was superior to DMARDs alone in slowing RA progression and ameliorating symptoms, with well- tolerated and acceptable safety profile.

A model of human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) activation in mental health and illness

Despite strong evidence for the heritability of major depressive disorder (MDD), efforts to identify causal genes have been disappointing. Furthermore, although there is strong support for life stress as a major predictor of MDD, there are also considerable individual differences in susceptibility and resilience that remain poorly understood. Efforts to identify specific gene-by-environment risk factors produced results that were initially encouraging, but that were not supported by later large-scale studies. Here I propose a novel mechanism that could address the "missing heritability" of MDD, the role of environmental risk factors, and individual differences in susceptibility and resilience. This mechanism focuses on a class of transposable elements, Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs), which make up approximately 8% of the human genome as the result of ancient retroviral infections that entered mammalian germ lines throughout the course of evolution. My primary hypothesis is that exposure to either exogenous viruses or traumatic experiences can activate HERVs in the brain to cause depressive (and possibly other psychiatric) symptoms. My secondary hypothesis is that individual differences in vulnerability or resilience result from the balance of activated HERVs with pathogenic versus protective functions in the brain. Future research can test these hypotheses by analysis of postmortem human brain tissue from donors with known viral or trauma histories; animal studies manipulating HERV expression; cell culture studies examining regulatory mechanisms of HERV expression; and from brain imaging studies of individuals with known HERV-expression. Such research may reveal novel functions of HERVs in neural tissue and may lead to a new generation of psychiatric interventions designed to target aberrant HERV activation.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy and the Risk for Depression Among Working-Age Adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at high risk for depression because of the overall burden of systemic inflammation. Although some evidence suggests that treatment with powerful anti-inflammatory drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, may be effective in reducing the risk for depression in patients with RA, it is unclear whether such reduction in risk is dependent on the response to TNF inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the response to TNF inhibitor therapy and the risk for depression among working-age adults with RA.

METHOD

This retrospective, observational cohort study design was based on data derived from commercial claims data in the QuintilesIMS Real World Data Adjudicated Claims database between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015. A total of 4222 working-age adults (18-62 years) with RA who started treatment with TNF inhibitor therapy and were continuously enrolled during the 3 observation periods (ie, 1-year baseline, 1-year treatment, and 1-year follow-up periods) were included in the study. Treatment response to a TNF inhibitor was measured using prescription drug claims based on a published validated algorithm. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between treatment response to TNF inhibitor therapy and the risk for depression, after controlling for baseline demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and RA-related medication use. An inverse probability of treatment weighting technique was used to control for observable differences in TNF inhibitor responders' characteristics versus TNF inhibitor nonresponders.

RESULTS

Overall, 359 (8.5%) patients with RA had depression during the follow-up period and 1679 (39.8%) patients responded to TNF inhibitor treatment during the 1-year treatment period. A significantly lower percentage of TNF inhibitor responders (7.1%, N = 119) had depression than TNF inhibitor nonresponders (9.4%, N = 239). After controlling for other risk factors, responders to TNF inhibitors were 20% less likely to have depression during the follow-up period (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.98) than nonresponders to TNF inhibitor therapy.

CONCLUSION

The risk for depression was significantly reduced among patients with RA who responded to TNF inhibitor therapy compared with those who did not respond to such therapy. To determine whether the lower rate of depression observed with TNF inhibition is a direct effect of treatment with a TNF inhibitor, or whether it could be attributed to improvement in RA disease secondary to treatment, future studies need to also incorporate a control population of patients with RA who receive other antirheumatic regimens, such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Depression in Somatic Disorders: Is There a Beneficial Effect of Exercise?

Background: The beneficial effects of exercise training on depressive symptoms are well-established. In the past years, more research attention has been drawn to the specific effects of exercise training on depressive symptoms in somatically ill patients. This reviews aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the current findings and evidence of exercise interventions in somatic disorders to improve depressive symptoms. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane databases and extracted meta-analyses from somatically ill patients that underwent exercise interventions and provided information about the outcome of depressive symptoms. Results: Of the 4123 detected publications, 39 were selected for final analysis. Various diseases were included (breast-cancer, prostate cancer, mixed-cancer, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, hemodialysis, fibromyalgia syndrome, acute leukemia, other hematological malignancies, heart failure, HIV, multiple sclerosis, mixed neurological disorders, Parkinson's disease, stroke, ankylosing spondylitis, traumatic brain injury, lupus erythematodes). Most meta-analyses (33/39) found beneficial effects on depressive symptoms, but quality of the included studies as well as duration, intensity, frequency, and type of exercise varied widely. Conclusion: Exercise training has the potential to improve depressive symptoms in patients with somatic disorders. For specific training recommendations, more high quality studies with structured exercise programs and better comparability are needed.

Efficacy and safety of various anti-rheumatic treatments for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biologics and traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are generally used in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Previous studies have presented abundant data and information about the efficacy of such treatments, but the results were incomplete and inconclusive. This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and assess the efficacy and safety of 15 therapies employing biologics and DMARDs for RA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six outcomes (American College of Rheumatology 20% response rate (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70, remission, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)) were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different treatments. The node-splitting method was used to assess the inconsistency, and the rank probabilities of the therapies were estimated by surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Besides, Jadad scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 67 randomized controlled trials with 20,898 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most of the therapies presented better performance than conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) and placebo in ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70. Conversely, the safety of cDMARDs and placebo seemed to be superior in AEs and SAEs. Also, tocilizumab (TCZ) and TCZ + methotrexate (MTX) showed better remission in pain compared to other treatments. Overall, certolizumab pegol (CZP) + MTX and TCZ + MTX had higher probability than the other treatments in efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend CZP + MTX as the optimal drug therapy because it has the highest ranking in efficacy outcomes and relatively low risk of adverse events. TCZ + MTX is recommended as an alternative. Abatacept (ABT) and cDMARDs are not recommended due to their low efficacy.

Effects of Conventional and Biological Drugs Used for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis on the Quality of Life and Depression

Objective

This study aims to investigate the effects of conventional and biological drugs used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on patients' quality of life, depression, and anxiety.

Materials and Methods

A total of 80 patients with a diagnosis of RA based on the American College of Rheumatology/Annual European Congress of Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) 2010 diagnostic criteria were included in the study. Patients were classified into two groups as follows: patients using conventional disease-modifying agents (csDMARDs) alone (Group 1, n=40) and patients using biological disease-modifying agents (bDMARDs) and a csDMARD combination (Group 2, n=40). Demographical patient data were collected. The levels of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) were measured in both groups. All patients completed the Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Beck Depression Scale (BDS), and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS).

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups of patients regarding their demographical characteristics, autoantibody positivity, or DAS scores (p>0.05). HAQ scores and all parameters and summary scores of the SF-36, BDS, and HADS scores were not significantly different between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Results of the present study showed that csDMARDs and bDMARDs, which required a more invasive administration and were associated with serious side effects, were not superior to each other in terms of their effects on patients' quality of life. csDMARD and bDMARD were also not superior to each other regarding their effects on anxiety and depression among patients with RA.

Effect of subcutaneous tocilizumab treatment on work/housework status in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients using inverse probability of treatment weighting: FIRST ACT-SC study

BACKGROUND

Following the onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), patients experience a functional decline caused by various joint symptoms which affects their activities of daily living and can lead to reduced work productivity. We evaluated the effect of a 52-week treatment with tocilizumab by subcutaneous injection (TCZ-SC) among biologic-naive Japanese house workers (HWs) and paid workers (PWs) with RA in a real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

This multicenter, observational, prospective study enrolled 377 and 347 RA patients into TCZ-SC and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)-alone groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was the change in percentage of overall work impairment (OWI) among PWs at week 52 assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were used to compare treatments. The Work Functioning Impairment Scale, disease activity, quality of life (QOL) measures, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

The weighted change in OWI from baseline for PWs was -18.9% (TCZ-SC group) and -19.0% (csDMARDs group) at week 52, without a significant between-group difference (adjusted treatment difference 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.3 to 6.5; P = 0.978). Changes in WPAI activity impairment in the overall group (between-group difference -6.4, 95% CI -10.7 to -2.2; P = 0.003) and HWs (-9.5, 95% CI - 16.0 to -2.9; P = 0.005) were significantly better with TCZ-SC than with csDMARDs at week 52. TCZ-SC-treated HWs showed significant improvement in all QOL assessments (Frenchay Activities Index, EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and 6-item Kessler scale (K6)) at week 52; PWs did not show any between-group differences for these QOL measures. Disease activity (Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Simplified Disease Activity Index) and QOL measures (EQ-5D, HAQ-DI, and K6) improved over time in the overall group. No new safety concerns were raised with TCZ-SC.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of differences in OWI between groups at week 52, the overall group (particularly HWs) receiving TCZ-SC in addition to csDMARDs showed significant improvements in activity impairment, disease activity, and QOL versus those receiving csDMARDs alone. This study may promote the evaluation of work productivity improvements in HWs and PWs by RA treatment.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Antidepressant activity of anti-cytokine treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of chronic inflammatory conditions

Inflammatory cytokines are commonly elevated in acute depression and are associated with resistance to monoaminergic treatment. To examine the potential role of cytokines in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of antidepressant activity of anti-cytokine treatment using clinical trials of chronic inflammatory conditions where depressive symptoms were measured as a secondary outcome. Systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane databases, search of reference lists and conference abstracts, followed by study selection process yielded 20 clinical trials. Random effect meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2370 participants showed a significant antidepressant effect of anti-cytokine treatment compared with placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.59). Anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs were most commonly studied (five RCTs); SMD=0.33 (95% CI; 0.06-0.60). Separate meta-analyses of two RCTs of adjunctive treatment with anti-cytokine therapy and eight non-randomised and/or non-placebo studies yielded similar small-to-medium effect estimates favouring anti-cytokine therapy; SMD=0.19 (95% CI, 0.00-0.37) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34-0.67), respectively. Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and tocilizumab all showed statistically significant improvements in depressive symptoms. Meta-regression exploring predictors of response found that the antidepressant effect was associated with baseline symptom severity (P=0.018) but not with improvement in primary physical illness, sex, age or study duration. The findings indicate a potentially causal role for cytokines in depression and that cytokine modulators may be novel drugs for depression in chronically inflamed subjects. The field now requires RCTs of cytokine modulators using depression as the primary outcome in subjects with high inflammation who are free of other physical illnesses.

Tofacitinib with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Patient-reported outcomes from a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial

Aim

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assess the effect of tofacitinib + conventional synthetic disease‐modifying anti rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient‐reported outcomes in Chinese patients with RA and inadequate response to DMARDs.

Methods

This analysis of data from the Phase 3 study ORAL Sync included Chinese patients randomized 4 : 4 : 1 : 1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, or placebo→tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, with csDMARDs. Placebo non‐responders switched to tofacitinib at 3 months; the remaining placebo patients switched at 6 months. Least squares mean changes from baseline were reported for Health Assessment Questionnaire‐Disability Index (HAQ‐DI), patient assessment of arthritis pain (Pain), patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physician global assessment of disease activity (PGA), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy‐Fatigue (FACIT‐F) scores, Short Form 36 (SF‐36), and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), using a mixed‐effects model for repeated measures.

Results

Overall, 216 patients were included (tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, n = 86; tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, n = 86; placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, n = 22; placebo→tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, n = 22). At month 3, tofacitinib elicited significant improvements in HAQ‐DI, Pain, PtGA, PGA and SF‐36 Physical Component Summary scores. Improvements were generally maintained through 12 months.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily + csDMARDs resulted in improvements in health‐related quality of life, physical function and Pain through 12 months in Chinese patients with RA.

Cytokine Levels in Panic Disorder: Evidence for a Dose-Response Relationship

OBJECTIVE

Several studies have investigated possible biological correlates of mental disorders. Although some studies have consistently reported elevated levels of serum inflammatory markers in depression, very few have evaluated cytokine levels in patients with lifetime panic disorder (PD).

METHODS

Seventy-eight adults (75% women) from an anxiety disorders outpatient unit were categorized according to their PD status: current or in remission. Serum levels of interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor α, and IL-10 were evaluated using flow cytometry with enhanced sensitivity flex sets. Data on clinical comorbidity, lipid profile, fasting blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and PD severity were also obtained.

RESULTS

Significantly higher mean levels of serum IL-6 (0.83 vs 0.60 pg/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}for the log-transformed mean difference, -0.41 to -0.57], p = .008) but not of tumor necrosis factor-α (0.18 vs 0.14 pg/mL [95% CI, -1.12 to 0.11]; p = 0.53) or IL-10 (0.21 vs 0.26 [95% CI, -0.20 to 0.44]; p = 0.16), were associated with current PD compared to remitted PD. Higher Panic Disorder Severity Scale (standardized β = 0.36; p = .013), body mass index (standardized β = 0.53, p < .001) and fasting blood glucose 5.6 mmol/L or greater (standardized β = 0.23, p = .038) were significantly associated with higher levels of IL-6 in the multivariate linear regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support a proinflammatory state in patients with current PD that is independent of possible confounders. Although there are important implications of these findings, replication is required.

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.

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.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-methotrexate combination therapy versus triple therapy in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have not consistently demonstrated differences between tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus methotrexate and triple therapy (methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine plus sulfasalazine) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study objective was to estimate the efficacy, radiographic benefits, safety and patient-reported outcomes of TNFi-methotrexate versus triple therapy in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials of TNFi-methotrexate or triple therapy as one of the treatment arms in patients with an inadequate response to or who were naive to methotrexate was conducted. American College of Rheumatology 70% response criteria (ACR70) at 6 months was the prespecified primary endpoint to evaluate depth of response. Data from direct and indirect comparisons between TNFi-methotrexate and triple therapy were pooled and quantitatively analysed using fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian models.

RESULTS

We analysed 33 studies in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate and 19 in patients naive to methotrexate. In inadequate responders, triple therapy was associated with lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.35, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.19 to 0.64). Most secondary endpoints tended to favour TNFi-methotrexate in terms of OR direction; however, no clear increased likelihood of achieving these endpoints was observed for either therapy. The odds of infection were lower with triple therapy than with TNFi-methotrexate (OR 0.08, 95% CrI 0.00 to 0.57). There were no differences observed between the two regimens in patients naive to methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, triple therapy was associated with 65% lower odds of achieving ACR70 at 6 months compared with TNFi-methotrexate in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Although secondary endpoints numerically favoured TNFi-methotrexate, no clear differences were observed. The odds of infection were greater with TNFi-methotrexate. No differences were observed for patients naive to methotrexate. These results may help inform care of patients who fail methotrexate first-line therapy.

Nocturia Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Compared with Other Common Chronic Diseases

OBJECTIVES

The International Continence Society defines nocturia as the need to void one or more times during the night, with each of the voids preceded and followed by sleep. The chronic sleep disturbance and sleep deprivation experienced by patients with nocturia affects quality of life, compromising both mental and physical well-being. This paper aims to characterise the burden of nocturia by comparing published data from patients with nocturia with data from patients with any of 12 other common chronic conditions, specifically focusing on its impact on work productivity and activity impairment, as measured by the instrument of the same name (WPAI).

METHODS

A systematic literature review of multiple data sources identified evaluable studies for inclusion in the analysis. Study eligibility criteria included use of the WPAI instrument in patients with one of a predefined list of chronic conditions. We assessed the quality of each included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and extracted basic study information, work and activity impairment data. To assess how work and activity impairment from nocturia compares with impairment from other common chronic diseases, we conducted two data syntheses (pooled and unpooled).

RESULTS

The number of evaluable studies and the range of overall work productivity impairment reported, respectively, were as follows: nocturia (3; 14-39 %), overactive bladder (5; 11-41 %), irritable bowel syndrome/constipation (14; 21-51 %), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (13; 6-42 %), asthma/allergies (11; 6-40 %), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (7; 19-42 %), sleep problems (3; 12-37 %), arthritis (13; 21-69 %), pain (9; 29-64 %), depression (4; 15-43 %) and gout (2; 20-37 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall work productivity impairment as a result of nocturia is substantial and was found to be similar to impairment observed as a result of several other more frequently researched common chronic diseases. Greater awareness of the burden of nocturia, a highly bothersome and prevalent condition, will help policy makers and healthcare decision makers provide appropriate management of nocturia.

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.

Biologic interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

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.

Combination Therapy With and Without Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

The costs of biologic treatment per patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are approximately 100 times the costs of treatment with a combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Despite this, biologic agents have not been proven superior. We compared the effects of combination DMARD therapies with and without biologic agents as therapy for patients with RA.

METHODS

Eight randomized controlled trials published in 10 articles were selected from a systematic literature search of 1,674 identified studies and integrated in a meta-analysis. These trials compared combinations of DMARDs versus a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor plus methotrexate. Two reviewers independently entered data into standardized extraction forms. The combined effect measures were compared by means of the inverse variance method (continuous data) and the Mantel-Haenszel method (dichotomous data) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The primary outcome, radiographic progression score, did not differ between the combination DMARD group and the TNF inhibitor group, neither during the second year (-0.09 units [-0.61, 0.44]) of treatment or during the first 2 years (0.66 units [-0.12, 1.43]). There were significant differences in the radiographic progression score, the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 50% improvement (ACR50), and the ACR70 response criteria at 6 months in favor of TNF inhibitor treatment, but these differences were not present in patients treated with an initial steroid course and disappeared at 24 months, irrespective of the use of steroids.

CONCLUSION

The difference between DMARD combination treatments, including or excluding TNF inhibitors, is small. Due to the enormous cost differences, RA guidelines should recommend combination DMARD treatment before initiation of TNF inhibitors.

A structured literature review of the burden of illness and unmet needs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a current perspective

While rheumatologists often focus on treatment targets, for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), control over pain and fatigue, as well as sustaining physical function and quality of life (QoL), is of primary importance. This literature review aimed at examining patients' and physicians' treatment aspirations, and identifying the unmet needs for patients with RA receiving ongoing treatment. Searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit literature databases for articles published from 2004 to 2014 in the English language. Published literature was screened to identify articles reporting the unmet needs in RA. We found that, despite the wide range of available treatments, RA continues to pose a substantial humanistic and economic burden on patients, and there are still unmet needs across key domains such as pain, physical function, mental function, and fatigue. These findings suggest that there is a need for further treatment advances in RA that address these domains of contemporary unmet need.

Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in chronic physical illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on depression and anxiety

OBJECTIVE

Depression is more common among individuals with chronic physical illness than in the general population. New treatments for severe and chronic inflammatory conditions which inhibit tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), a pro-inflammatory cytokine, may be able to shed some light on the role of inflammatory mediators in depression. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials determined the effects of TNF-α inhibitor therapy on depression and anxiety in people with chronic physical illness.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception to January 2014: AMED, Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials (reported in seven articles) met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. In total 2540 participants were enrolled across the trials, with participants presenting with rheumatoid arthritis (n=3 trials), psoriasis (n=2) or ankylosing spondylitis (n=1). Meta-analyses, using standardised mean differences, showed evidence of small reductions in depression (-0.24; 95% CI -0.33 to -0.14; p<0.001), and anxiety (-0.17; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.02; p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

TNF-α inhibitor therapy reduces depression in people with chronic disease though the effects are small. Whilst this is consistent with inflammation contributing to the development of depression, further studies investigating a more detailed timeline of changes in depression, inflammatory biomarkers and disease activity status are required.

Etanercept: a review of its use in autoimmune inflammatory diseases

With its approval more than 15 years ago, subcutaneous etanercept (Enbrel(®)) was the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor to be approved for use in rheumatic diseases. Etanercept remains an important cost-effective treatment option in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis or plaque psoriasis, and in paediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis or plaque psoriasis. In all of these populations, etanercept (with or without methotrexate) effectively reduced signs and symptoms, disease activity and disability, and improved health-related quality of life, with these benefits sustained during long-term treatment. The safety profile of etanercept during short- and long-term treatment was consistent with the approved product labelling, with adverse events being of a predictable and manageable nature. The introduction of etanercept and other bDMARDs as therapeutic options for patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases and spondyloarthropathies revolutionized disease management and these agents continue to have a central role in treatment strategies. This article reviews the extensive clinical experience with etanercept in these patient populations.

Cost Effectiveness of TNF-α Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background. TNF-α inhibitors have shown to be effective in reducing disease activity and improving the quality of life. Due to the high costs associated with acquisition of this treatment, this study was undertaken to evaluate the ICER of TNF-α antagonists (etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab) in improving the quality of life. Methods. The HAQ and SF-36 were administered at phases 1, 2, and 3, in order to assess the improvement in the QOL. Suppression of disease activity was assessed through the DAS-28. Results. Statistically significant improvements (P < 0.05) were noted for the SF-36 and HAQ after 3 months and for the DAS-28 after 6 months of TNF-α inhibitor therapy. The mean ICER per 10% improvement in the HAQ, DAS-28, and SF-6D were €1976.5, €2086.5, and €2316.4, respectively, following 6 months of TNF-α intervention. Most favorable ICERs were reported from a patient who had to undergo surgical intervention whilst on DMARD therapy. Conclusion. Significant improvement was observed in patients' quality of life, after a short timeframe of 6 months. Such data is useful information in the light of convincing policy makers, in terms of providing access to the medications to individual patients on national health service schemes.