Self-monitoring combined with patient-initiated care in RA patients with low disease activity: cost-effectiveness analysis of an RCT.

OBJECTIVES: Self-monitoring and patient-initiated care (PIC) leads to fewer outpatient clinic visits in patients with established RA with low disease activity (LDA) while healthcare outcomes are similar. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of PIC with self-monitoring. METHODS: A 12-month randomized controlled trial was performed with 49 patients in the PIC with self-monitoring group (app-group) and 53 in usual care. The usual care group continued with preplanned visits. The app group had one planned follow-up visit after 12 months and monitored their RA disease activity in a smartphone app. Both groups could make additional appointments at liberty. We included adult RA patients with a disease duration of over 2 years, a disease activity score 28 (DAS28) below 3.2 that were stable on medication for at least 6 months. The effect measure, the DAS28, was measured at 12 months and healthcare resource usage and productivity losses were measured at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mean change of DAS28 (-0.04 mean difference, 95% CI: -0.39, 0.30), nor a statistically significant difference in total costs (mean difference €514, 95% CI:-€266, €3690) in the app group compared with the usual care group. The probability that the app was cost-effective was 0.37 and 0.57 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0 and 50 000 €/point improvement DAS28, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although rheumatic care costs were significantly lower in the app group, total costs and effects of PIC with self-monitoring were not different from usual care in RA patients with LDA.

Whole-Body Macrophage Positron Emission Tomography Imaging for Disease Activity Assessment in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential of whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with a macrophage tracer to image arthritis in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Thirty-five previously untreated, clinically active patients with early RA underwent whole-body PET/CT scanning with the macrophage tracer (R)-[11C]PK11195 in addition to clinical assessment (Disease Activity Score in 44 joints [DAS44]). Tracer uptake was assessed quantitatively as standardized uptake values (SUVs). In addition, 2 readers blinded to clinical assessment visually scored tracer uptake in joints. Clinical and PET variables were compared using Cohen , linear regression/correlation, and t tests, where appropriate. RESULTS: All but 1 patient showed enhanced tracer uptake in at least 1 joint. Twelve percent of all joints (171/1470) were visually positive on the PET scan, most frequently the small joints in feet (40%) and hands (37%), followed by wrists (15%). Correlations of visual scores with clinical findings both at patient and joint levels were absent or weak. In contrast, average SUVs in the hands, feet, and whole body showed significant correlations with DAS44 scores, with the best correlation seen in the feet (R2 = 0.29, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Clinically active patients with early RA had increased joint uptake of a macrophage PET tracer, especially in the feet. Quantitative, but not visual PET measures of whole body and joint groups, particularly the feet, showed moderate and statistically significant correlations with clinical outcome.

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. RESULTS: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1). METHODS: At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts. RESULTS: The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms. CONCLUSION: We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

A Novel Method to Combine Assessment of Benefit and Harm: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 3×3 Methodology Applied to Two Active Comparator Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3×3 method analyzes the occurrence of benefit and harm simultaneously at the individual patient level. We applied this method to 2 recent rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trial data sets. METHODS: The Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies (RACAT) randomized trial outcomes for safety were defined according to OMERACT as having no adverse events (AEs), non-serious AEs, and serious AEs. Treatment efficacy was defined as good, moderate, or no response. A good treatment response without any AEs was labeled an unqualified success, and no treatment response but at least 1 AE was considered an unmitigated failure. The association between benefit and harm was assessed by chi-square or exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: In TEAR, 612 of 755 patients had response data at 48 weeks: 14% of patients experienced unqualified success and 9% had unmitigated failure, with no difference between the treatment arms. Treatment response and AE rates were not correlated. In RACAT, 309 of 353 patients had response data at 48 weeks: 6% of patients experienced unqualified success and 11% had unmitigated failure, with no differences between the treatment arms. Response and AE rates were negatively correlated. The frequency of AEs and serious AEs increased as response decreased (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: We found some evidence that clinical response may be reduced by the co-occurrence of AEs.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called "JAK/STAT inhibitors") have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA. METHODS: The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions. DISCUSSION: Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258 . Registered on 20 October 2015.

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

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if COmbinatie therapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy is cost-effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with COBRA therapy. METHODS: This economic evaluation was performed next to the open-label, randomised non-inferiority COBRA-light trial in 164 patients with early RA. Non-responders to COBRA or COBRA-light received etanercept (50 mg/week) for 3-6 months. The societal perspective analysis took medical direct, non-medical direct and indirect costs into account. Costs were measured with patient cost diaries for the follow-up period of 52 weeks. Bootstrapping techniques estimated uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios, presented in cost-effectiveness planes. RESULTS: 164 patients were randomised to either COBRA or COBRA-light strategy. At week 52, COBRA-light proved to be non-inferior to COBRA therapy on all clinical outcome measures. The results of the base-case cost-utility analysis (intention-to-treat analyses) revealed that COBRA-light strategy is more expensive (k€9.3 (SD 0.9) compared with COBRA (k€7.2 (SD 0.8)), but the difference in costs were not significant (k€2.0; 95% CI -0.3 to 4.4). Also, both strategies produced similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. In a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, in which costs of etanercept were assumed to be provided as prescribed according to protocol, both arms had much higher costs: COBRA-light: k€11.5 (8.3) compared with k€8.5 (6.8) for COBRA, and the difference in costs was significant (k€2.9; 0.6 to 5.3). CONCLUSIONS: In the base-case cost-utility analysis, the two strategies produced similar QALYs for similar costs. But it is anticipated that if protocol had been followed correctly, the COBRA-light strategy would have been more costly due to additional etanercept costs, for a limited health gain. Given the limited added benefit and high costs of starting etanercept in the presence of low disease activity in our trial, such a strategy needs better justification than is available now. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 55552928, Results.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis patients still suboptimal: the Implementation of Cardiovascular Risk Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis project.

Objective: To assess the 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk score and to identify treatment and undertreatment of CV risk factors in patients with established RA. Methods: Demographics, CV risk factors and prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were assessed by questionnaire. To calculate the 10-year CV risk score according to the Dutch CV risk management guideline, systolic blood pressure was measured and cholesterol levels were determined from fasting blood samples. Patients were categorized into four groups: indication for treatment but not treated; inadequately treated, so not meeting goals (systolic blood pressure ⩽140 mmHg and/or low-density lipoprotein ⩽2.5 mmol/l); adequately treated; or no treatment necessary. Results: A total of 720 consecutive RA patients were included, 375 from Reade and 345 from the Antonius Hospital. The mean age of patients was 59 years (s.d. 12) and 73% were female. Seventeen per cent of the patients had a low 10-year CV risk (<10%), 21% had an intermediate risk (10-19%), 53% a high risk (⩾20%) and 9% had CVD. In total, 69% had an indication for preventive treatment (cholesterol-lowering or antihypertensive drugs). Of those, 42% received inadequate treatment and 40% received no treatment at all. Conclusion: Optimal CV risk management remains a major challenge and better awareness and management are urgently needed to reduce the high risk of CVD in the RA population.

Recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs to treat or prevent sarcopenia.

PURPOSE: Sarcopenia is an age-related muscle condition which is frequently a precursor of frailty, mobility disability and premature death. It has a high prevalence in older populations and presents a considerable social and economic burden. Potential treatments are under development but, as yet, no guidelines support regulatory studies for new drugs to manage sarcopenia. The objective of this position paper is therefore to suggest a set of potential endpoints and target population definitions to stimulate debate and progress within the medico-scientific and regulatory communities. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert working group was hosted by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis, which reviewed and discussed the recent literature from a perspective of clinical experience and guideline development. Relevant parallels were drawn from the development of definition of osteoporosis as a disease and clinical assessment of pharmaceutical treatments for that indication. RESULTS: A case-finding decision tree is briefly reviewed with a discussion of recent prevalence estimations of different relevant threshold values. The selection criteria for patients in regulatory studies are discussed according to the aims of the investigation (sarcopenia prevention or treatment) and the stage of project development. The possible endpoints of such studies are reviewed and a plea is made for the establishment of a core outcome set to be used in all clinical trials of sarcopenia. CONCLUSIONS: The current lack of guidelines for the assessment of new therapeutic treatments for sarcopenia could potentially hinder the delivery of effective medicines to patients at risk.

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: an expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. OBJECTIVES: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. RESULTS: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications of filter 2.0 to select outcome instruments through assessment of "truth": content, face, and construct validity.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter requires that criteria be met to demonstrate that the outcome instrument meets the criteria for content, face, and construct validity. METHODS: Discussion groups critically reviewed a variety of ways in which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with the Truth component of the Filter and what issues remained to be resolved. RESULTS: The case studies showed that there is broad agreement on criteria for meeting the Truth criteria through demonstration of content, face, and construct validity; however, several issues were identified that the Filter Working Group will need to address. CONCLUSION: These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on how Truth will be assessed for the proposed Filter 2.0 framework, for instruments to be endorsed by OMERACT.

Health economics in the field of osteoarthritis: an expert's consensus paper from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

OBJECTIVES: There is an important need to evaluate therapeutic approaches for osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of cost-effectiveness as well as efficacy. METHODS: The ESCEO expert working group met to discuss the epidemiological and economic evidence that justifies the increasing concern of the impact of this disease and reviewed the current state-of-the-art in health economic studies in this field. RESULTS: OA is a debilitating disease; it is increasing in frequency and is associated with a substantial and growing burden on society, in terms of both burden of illness and cost of illness. Economic evaluations in this field are relatively rare, and those that do exist, show considerable heterogeneity of methodological approach (such as indicated population, comparator, decision context and perspective, time horizon, modeling and outcome measures used). This heterogeneity makes comparisons between studies problematic. CONCLUSIONS: Better adherence to guidelines for economic evaluations is needed. There was strong support for the definition of a reference case and for what might constitute "standard optimal care" in terms of best clinical practice, for the control arms of interventional studies.

A simple model that suggests possible cost savings when modified-release prednisone 5 mg/day is added to current treatment in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of a 12-week treatment with modified-release prednisone (MR-pred) on the costs of drug treatment of RA were modelled. METHODS: With the results of a recent randomized trial as source data, we expressed the effect of treatment (MR-pred vs placebo) on the decrease in the proportion of RA patients meeting disease activity thresholds for reimbursement of biologic treatment. RESULTS: The results showed 11-13% more patients on MR-pred than on placebo dropped below reimbursement thresholds for The Netherlands, Belgium and the UK. Assuming 1 year of biologics cost €15,000 and MR-pred costs €1/day, €396 are saved in each patient delaying biologic treatment by 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Despite a considerably higher cost than conventional prednisone, MR-pred is a cost-effective option for RA patients not on glucocorticoids who are eligible for therapy with biologic agents.