EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10. CONCLUSION: The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care. LIMITATIONS: There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195. 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. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a long-term condition that causes pain, swelling and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with drugs called tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira^®; AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel^®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia^®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi^®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)]. Some people taking these drugs find that their disease improves, whereas others do not respond to the treatment or improve initially and then experience loss of response. One cause of lost response is that individuals develop antibodies (i.e. protective proteins) against the drug, which hamper the effect of treatment. Various tests have been developed to measure the level of drugs and antibodies against these drugs in patient's blood samples. This kind of monitoring would allow treatment to be adjusted in response to the test outcomes to optimise benefit for the patient, and help clinicians to better understand the reasons for an absence or a loss of response to treatment. The aim of this study was to find out whether or not it would be clinically effective (i.e. good for patients) and cost-effective (i.e. a good use of NHS resources) to use these tests for monitoring drug and antibody levels, as a means of assessing treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are controlled, have not responded or have lost response. Results from a systematic review showed that, because of the limited and poor-quality evidence, there was much uncertainty in the clinical effectiveness of testing. A simple mathematical model drew on evidence from one poorly reported study, which was heavily supplemented by data from other studies and expert advice. Results from the model were inconclusive and suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of testing. Therefore, the results presented here should be considered with caution. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of tumour necrosis factor testing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Translating research into clinical practice: quality improvement to halve non-adherence to methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: MTX remains the cornerstone for therapy for RA, yet research shows that non-adherence is significant and correlates with response to therapy. This study aimed to halve self-reported non-adherence to MTX at the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology. METHODS: An anonymous self-report adherence questionnaire was developed and data collected for 3 months prior to the introduction of interventions, and then regularly for the subsequent 2.5 years. A series of interventions were implemented, including motivational interviewing training, consistent information about MTX and development of a summary bookmark. Information on clinic times was collected for consultations with and without motivational interviewing. Surveys were conducted to ascertain consistency of messages about MTX. A biochemical assay was used to test MTX serum levels in patients at two time points: before and 2.8 years following introduction of the changes. Remission rates at 6 and 12 months post-MTX initiation were retrieved from patient notes and cost savings estimated by comparing actual numbers of new biologic starters compared with expected numbers based on the numbers of consultants employed at the two time points. RESULTS: Between June and August 2016, self-reported non-adherence to MTX was 24.7%. Following introduction of the interventions, self-reported non-adherence rates reduced to an average of 7.4% between April 2018 and August 2019. Clinic times were not significantly increased when motivational interviewing was employed. Consistency of messages by staff across three key areas (benefits of MTX, alcohol guidance and importance of adherence) improved from 64% in September 2016 to 94% in January 2018. Biochemical non-adherence reduced from 56% (September 2016) to 17% (June 2019), whilst remission rates 6 months post-initiation of MTX improved from 13% in 2014/15 to 37% in 2017/18, resulting is estimated cost savings of £30 000 per year. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence to MTX can be improved using simple measures including focussing on the adherence and the benefits of treatment, and providing consistent information across departments.

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.

Social media use among young rheumatologists and basic scientists: results of an international survey by the Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET).

OBJECTIVES: To explore perceptions, barriers and patterns of social media (SM) use among rheumatology fellows and basic scientists. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated via Twitter, Facebook and by email to members of the Emerging European League Against Rheumatism Network. Questions focused on general demographics, frequency and types of SM use, reasons and barriers to SM use. RESULTS: Of 233 respondents (47 countries), 72% were aged 30-39 years, 66% female. 83% were active users of at least one SM platform and 71% were using SM professionally. The majority used SM for communicating with friends/colleagues (79%), news updates (76%), entertainment (69%), clinical (50%) and research (48%) updates. Facebook was the dominant platform used (91%). SM was reported to be used for information (81%); for expanding professional networks (76%); new resources (59%); learning new skills (47%) and establishing a professional online presence (46%). 30% of non-SM users justified not using SM due to lack of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial use of SM by rheumatologists and basic scientists for social and professional reasons. The survey highlights a need for providing learning resources and increasing awareness of the use of SM. This could enhance communication, participation and collaborative work, enabling its more widespread use in a professional manner.

A microcosting study of immunogenicity and tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor drug level tests for therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and quantify resource required and associated costs for implementing TNF-α inhibitor (TNFi) drug level and anti-drug antibody (ADAb) tests in UK rheumatology practice. METHODS: A microcosting study, assuming the UK National Health Service perspective, identified the direct medical costs associated with providing TNFi drug level and ADAb testing in clinical practice. Resource use and costs per patient were identified via four stages: identification of a patient pathway with resource implications; estimation of the resources required; identification of the cost per unit of resource (2015 prices); and calculation of the total costs per patient. Univariate and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed using the variation in resource use and unit costs. RESULTS: Total costs for TNFi drug level and concurrent ADAb testing, assessed using ELISAs on trough serum levels, were £152.52/patient (range: £147.68-159.24) if 40 patient samples were tested simultaneously. For the base-case analysis, the pre-testing phase incurred the highest costs, which included booking an additional appointment to acquire trough blood samples. The additional appointment was the key driver of costs per patient (67% of the total cost), and labour accounted for 10% and consumables 23% of the total costs. Performing ELISAs once per patient (rather than in duplicate) reduced the total costs to £133.78/patient. CONCLUSION: This microcosting study is the first assessing the cost of TNFi drug level and ADAb testing. The results could be used in subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses of TNFi pharmacological tests to target treatments and inform future policy recommendations.