Switching first-line targeted therapy after not reaching low disease activity within 6 months is superior to conservative approach: a propensity score-matched analysis from the ATTRA registry

Efficacy and safety of treat-to-target strategy studies in rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The concept of treat-to-target (T2T), a treatment strategy in which treatment is directed to reach and maintain a defined goal such as remission or low disease activity (LDA), has been explored for several diseases including rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, a comprehensive review of T2T in all rheumatic diseases has not recently been undertaken.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of a T2T strategy in the management of adult patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

METHODS

PUBMED, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from January 1990 to December 2023 using key words related to a T2T strategy and rheumatic diseases; T2T strategy clinical trials or observational studies were included. Clinical, physical function and radiologic outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs) of the T2T strategies were investigated and a random-effect meta-analysis was conducted for the most commonly used outcomes in RA studies.

RESULTS

The search identified 7896 studies, of which 66 fit inclusion criteria, including 50 in RA, 3 in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 1 in spondyloarthritis (SpA) and 12 in gout. For the studies comparing a T2T strategy with usual care (UC) in RA, 83.3% (20/24) showed a T2T strategy could achieve significantly better clinical outcomes, and the meta-analysis showed that patients treated with a T2T strategy were more likely to be in remission (pooled RR: 1.68 (1.47-1.92), p<0.001] and achieve DAS-28 response (pooled standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.47 (0.26-0.69), P<0.001] at 1 year than patients treated with UC. Sensitivity analyses showed that a T2T strategy with a predefined treatment protocol had better clinical efficacy than that without protocol. In terms of improving physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), 11/19 (57.9%) studies found a T2T strategy was significantly more likely to achieve these than UC, with the meta-analysis for the mean change of HAQ score supporting this conclusion (pooled SMD: 1.48 (0.46-2.51), p=0.004). Five out of 9 studies (55.6%) demonstrated greater benefit regarding radiographic progression from a T2T strategy. In terms of cost-effectiveness and AEs, 2/2 studies found a T2T strategy was more cost-effective than UC and 8/8 studies showed no tendency for AEs to occur more often with a T2T strategy. For the studies in PsA and SpA, a T2T strategy was also demonstrated to be more effective than UC in clinical and functional benefits, but not in radiologic outcomes. All gout studies showed that sUA level could be controlled more effectively with a T2T strategy, and 2 studies revealed that the T2T strategy could inhibit erosion development or crystal deposition.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with active RA, a T2T strategy has been shown in mulitple studies to increase the likelihood of achieving clinical response and improving HRQoL without increasing economic costs and AEs. Limited studies have shown clinical and functional benefits from T2T strategies in active PsA and SpA. A T2T strategy has also been found to improve clinical and radiologic outcomes in gout. T2T trials in other rheumatic diseases are lacking.

Time in remission as an alternative outcome measure for rheumatoid arthritis: a 10-year prospective study of 2618 new users of anti-TNF

OBJECTIVE

Achieving targeted disease activity (DA) is the primary therapeutic strategy in RA. Point measurements of DA are done at out-patient visits, however true DA between visits remains unobserved. This study sought to describe and validate a new outcome measure, i.e. time in remission (TIR).

METHODS

Patients were enrolled in the Czech ATTRA-RA registry. TIR was calculated using linear interpolation of the DAS28-ESR determined at outpatient visits. Correlation coefficients were computed between TIR and DAS28-CRP, HAQ, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), patient global assessment (PGA) and physician global assessment (PhGA). Using logistic regression, TIR was used as a predictor of remission (SDAI ≤3.3) and non-disability (HAQ <0.5). The predictive value of TIR was compared with point and sustained remission using the cross-validated area under receiver-operating curves.

RESULTS

Since 2010, 2618 RA patients started anti-TNF therapy and were followed until 2020 or until treatment discontinuation. During the first 6 months of therapy, 56% of patients had no remission (TIR = 0), and 22% of patients reached sustained remission (TIR = 1), while 22% of patients had point remissions with 0 < TIR < 1. EULAR good responders and moderate/non-responders spent 64 ± 42% and 6 ± 18% of time in remission, respectively. The mean TIR grew during the follow-up and was correlated with DAS28-CRP, SDAI, HAQ, PGA, and PhGA (P < 0.0001). TIR at 3 and 6 months predicted remission (SDAI ≤3.3) and non-disability (HAQ <0.5) at 13 and 19 months better than point or sustained remission.

CONCLUSIONS

TIR is an intuitive way of estimating unobserved DA between scheduled visits; its calculation only requires two consecutive DA values (https://www.medevio.cz/tir-calculator/). TIR is a valid predictor of RA outcomes.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Sustained and Switching Treatments Using Biological and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Multicenter, Observational Cross-Sectional Study for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease with different disease activity grades. Several registries have been designed to determine the appropriate regimens of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs to obtain sustained clinical remission. We examined epidemiological and clinical characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis patients using a clinical registry database (BioSTaR) and analyzed the differences in patients with sustained and switched therapies.

Methods

A multicenter, observational cross-sectional study for rheumatoid arthritis was performed between February 2019 and September 2020 using the BioStaR-RA registry.

Demographic and clinical characteristics were prospectively recorded into a specifically designed electronic database. The patients were divided into three groups due to the heterogeneity of the study cohort. Patients were grouped as Group I (Initial; within the first 6 months of treatment with biological/targeted synthetic drugs), Group ST (Sustained Treatment; any first drug lasting for at least 6 months without any change), and Group S (Switch; any switching to another drug). Comparative analysis was performed between sustained treatment (Group ST) and drug switching (Group S) groups.

Results

The study included a total of 565 patients. The mean age was 53.7 ± 12.8 years, and the majority were female (80.4%). There were 104, 267, and 194 patients in Groups I, ST, and S, respectively. Erosive arthritis and hematological extra-articular involvement were more frequently detected in Group S than Group ST (p = 0.009 and p = 0.001). The patients in Group S had significantly higher disease activity scores (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) (p = 0.025, p = 0.010, and p = 0.003). There were significantly more patients with moderate disease activity in Group S (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The groups with sustained treatment and switching included patients with different disease activity status, although higher disease activity was determined in switchers. Overall, moderate disease activity and remission were the most common disease activity levels. Lower disease activity scores, lower hematologic manifestations, better functional status, and lesser radiographic damage are associated with sustained treatment.

Rheumatoide Arthritis: Wie effektiv ist Treat-to-Target in der Praxis?

Ziel der sogenannte Treat-to-Target-Strategie bei der rheumatoiden Arthritis (RA) ist die Remission oder zumindest die niedrige Krankheitsaktivität innerhalb von 6 Monaten nach Therapiebeginn. Wird dieses Ziel nicht erreicht, muss die medikamentöse Behandlung angepasst werden. Ein tschechisches Forscherteam untersuchte nun, ob das Treat-to-Target-Konzept in der klinischen Praxis gegenüber der Standardversorgung Vorteile hat.