Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status. SETTING: UK outpatient rheumatology departments. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi. INTERVENTIONS: Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity. FUTURE WORK: The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Amaze: a randomized controlled trial of adjunct surgery for atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces survival and quality of life (QoL). It can be treated at the time of major cardiac surgery using ablation procedures ranging from simple pulmonary vein isolation to a full maze procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of adjunct AF surgery as currently performed on sinus rhythm (SR) restoration, survival, QoL and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In a multicentre, Phase III, pragmatic, double-blinded, parallel-armed randomized controlled trial, 352 cardiac surgery patients with >3 months of documented AF were randomized to surgery with or without adjunct maze or similar AF ablation between 2009 and 2014. Primary outcomes were SR restoration at 1 year and quality-adjusted life years at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included SR at 2 years, overall and stroke-free survival, medication, QoL, cost-effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: More ablation patients were in SR at 1 year [odds ratio (OR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-3.54; P = 0.009]. At 2 years, the OR increased to 3.24 (95% CI 1.76-5.96). Quality-adjusted life years were similar at 2 years (ablation - control -0.025, P = 0.6319). Significantly fewer ablation patients were anticoagulated from 6 months postoperatively. Stroke rates were 5.7% (ablation) and 9.1% (control) (P = 0.3083). There was no significant difference in stroke-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99, 95% CI 0.64-1.53; P = 0.949] nor in serious adverse events, operative or overall survival, cardioversion, pacemaker implantation, New York Heart Association, EQ-5D-3L and SF-36. The mean additional ablation cost per patient was £3533 (95% CI £1321-£5746). Cost-effectiveness was not demonstrated at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunct AF surgery is safe and increases SR restoration and costs but not survival or QoL up to 2 years. A continued follow-up will provide information on these outcomes in the longer term. Study registration: ISRCTN82731440 (project number 07/01/34).

Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Fatigue and Oral Dryness in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether rituximab, an anti-B cell therapy, improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that included health economic analysis. Anti-Ro-positive patients with primary SS, symptomatic fatigue, and oral dryness were recruited from 25 UK rheumatology clinics from August 2011 to January 2014. Patients were centrally randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) placebo (250 ml saline) or IV rituximab (1,000 mg in 250 ml saline) in 2 courses at weeks 0, 2, 24, and 26, with pre- and postinfusion medication including corticosteroids. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 30% reduction in either fatigue or oral dryness at 48 weeks, as measured by visual analog scale. Other outcome measures included salivary and lacrimal flow rates, quality of life, scores on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index and EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index, symptoms of ocular and overall dryness, pain, globally assessed disease activity, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: All 133 patients who were randomized to receive placebo (n = 66) or rituximab (n = 67) were included in the primary analysis. Among patients with complete data, 21 of 56 placebo-treated patients and 24 of 61 rituximab-treated patients achieved the primary end point. After multiple imputation of missing outcomes, response rates in the placebo and rituximab groups were 36.8% and 39.8%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.50, 2.55]). There were no significant improvements in any outcome measure except for unstimulated salivary flow. The mean ± SD costs per patient for rituximab and placebo were £10,752 ± 264.75 and £2,672 ± 241.71, respectively. There were slightly more adverse events (AEs) reported in total for rituximab, but there was no difference in serious AEs (10 in each group). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that rituximab is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective in this patient population.

Rationale and design of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary heart disease 2 trial (CE-MARC 2): a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of diagnostic strategies in suspected coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: A number of investigative strategies exist for the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite the widespread availability of noninvasive imaging, invasive angiography is commonly used early in the diagnostic pathway. Consequently, approximately 60% of angiograms reveal no evidence of obstructive coronary disease. Reducing unnecessary angiography has potential financial savings and avoids exposing the patient to unnecessary risk. There are no large-scale comparative effectiveness trials of the different diagnostic strategies recommended in international guidelines and none that have evaluated the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance. TRIAL DESIGN: CE-MARC 2 is a prospective, multicenter, 3-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial of patients with suspected CHD (pretest likelihood 10%-90%) requiring further investigation. A total of 1,200 patients will be randomized on a 2:2:1 basis to receive 3.0-T cardiovascular magnetic resonance-guided care, single-photon emission computed tomography-guided care (according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association appropriate-use criteria), or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines-based management. The primary (efficacy) end point is the occurrence of unnecessary angiography as defined by a normal (>0.8) invasive fractional flow reserve. Safety of each strategy will be assessed by 3-year major adverse cardiovascular event rates. Cost-effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life measures will be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The CE-MARC 2 trial will provide comparative efficacy and safety evidence for 3 different strategies of investigating patients with suspected CHD, with the intension of reducing unnecessary invasive angiography rates. Evaluation of these management strategies has the potential to improve patient care, health-related quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness of CHD investigation.