Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD. METHODS: We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument). RESULTS: In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences. CONCLUSION: Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

Sarilumab for Previously-Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Sanofi Genzyme) of sarilumab (SAR; Kevzara®) to submit evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for SAR was based predominantly on five randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of SAR against adalimumab, tocilizumab or placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of SAR against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed three network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: two in patients who had had an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) (one for combination therapies and one for monotherapies) and the other one in patients who had had an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). The company's NMAs concluded that SAR in combination with cDMARDs or as monotherapy has a statistically superior efficacy to cDMARDs and a comparable efficacy to most biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in both populations. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of SAR from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services in seven different populations: (1) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs (cDMARD-IR); (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA for whom methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a TNFi (TNFi-IR); (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) is not an option; (5) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (6) TNFi-IR patients after RTX; and (7) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA whose 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) is between 4.0 and 5.1. The company's economic evaluation resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy versus its comparators when the comparators were less effective, and it resulted in cost savings higher than £60,000 per QALY lost when SAR was less effective, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible (where the ICER for SAR + MTX compared with RTX + MTX was £130,691 per QALY gained) and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0 (where the ICER of SAR + MTX compared with MTX was £38,254 per QALY gained). Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying two changes to the company's model: (1) use of a latent class approach to model Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) progression for patients on cDMARDs; and (2) amendment of the company's modelling of patient progression from moderate to severe RA. The ICERs estimated by the ERG's exploratory analyses for SAR + MTX increased to £171,466 per QALY gained when compared with RTX + MTX in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible, and to £63,438 per QALY gained when compared with MTX in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0. The Appraisal Committee concluded that SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered populations, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0.

Baricitinib for Previously Treated Moderate or Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company's NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company's probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG's NMA results were broadly comparable with the company's results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible.

Tofacitinib for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care. DATA SOURCES: Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies. RESULTS: Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease. LIMITATIONS: TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients). CONCLUSION: In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Does intensive management improve remission rates in patients with intermediate rheumatoid arthritis? (the TITRATE trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled active rheumatoid arthritis can lead to increasing disability and reduced quality of life over time. 'Treating to target' has been shown to be effective in active established disease and also in early disease. However, there is a lack of nationally agreed treatment protocols for patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have intermediate disease activity. This trial is designed to investigate whether intensive management of disease leads to a greater number of remissions at 12 months. Levels of disability and quality of life, and acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the intervention will also be examined. METHODS: The trial is a 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre trial undertaken at specialist rheumatology centres across England. Three hundred and ninety-eight patients with established rheumatoid arthritis will be recruited. They will currently have intermediate disease activity (disease activity score for 28 joints assessed using an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 3.2 to 5.1 with at least three active joints) and will be taking at least one disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug. Participants will be randomly selected to receive intensive management or standard care. Intensive management will involve monthly clinical reviews with a specialist health practitioner, where drug treatment will be optimised and an individualised treatment support programme delivered based on several principles of motivational interviewing to address identified problem areas, such as pain, fatigue and adherence. Standard care will follow standard local pathways and will be in line with current English guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patients will be assessed initially and at 6 and 12 months through self-completed questionnaires and clinical evaluation. DISCUSSION: The trial will establish whether the known benefits of intensive treatment strategies in active rheumatoid arthritis are also seen in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have moderately active disease. It will evaluate both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intensive treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN70160382 . Registered on 16 January 2014.

Certolizumab Pegol for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis Following Inadequate Response to a TNF-α Inhibitor: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (UCB Pharma) of certolizumab pegol (CZP; Cimzia®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following inadequate response to a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for CZP was based predominantly on six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of CZP against placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of CZP against the comparators within the scope; therefore, the company performed a network meta-analysis (NMA). The company's NMA concluded that CZP had a similar efficacy to that of its comparators. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of CZP versus comparator biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service for three decision problems, each of which followed an inadequate response to a TNFi. These were (1) a comparison against rituximab (RTX) in combination with methotrexate (MTX); (2) a comparison against bDMARDs when RTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event; and (3) a comparison against bDMARDs when MTX was contraindicated or withdrawn due to an adverse event. Results from the company's economic evaluation showed that CZP resulted in a similar number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) produced at similar or lower costs compared with comparator bDMARDs. The commercial-in-confidence patient access schemes for abatacept and tocilizumab could not be incorporated by the company, but were incorporated by the ERG in a confidential appendix for the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company estimated that the addition of CZP before RTX in a sequence for patients who could receive MTX produced more QALYs at an increased cost, with a cost per QALY of £33,222. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses that did not change the conclusions reached based on the company's economic evaluation in relation to the comparison with bDMARDs. The ERG estimated that where CZP replaced RTX, CZP was dominated, as it produced fewer QALYs at an increased cost. The AC concluded that there was little difference in effectiveness between CZP and comparator bDMARDs and that equivalence among bDMARDs could be accepted. The AC consequently recommended CZP plus MTX for people for whom RTX is contraindicated or not tolerated and CZP monotherapy for people for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated. The AC concluded that CZP plus MTX could not be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources when RTX plus MTX is a treatment option.

The Cost-effectiveness of Sequences of Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in England for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Can Tolerate Methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether strategies of treatment with a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) are cost-effective in an English setting. Results are presented for those patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and those with severe RA. METHODS: An economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 7 bDMARD was developed. A systematic literature review and network metaanalysis was undertaken to establish relative clinical effectiveness. The results were used to populate the model, together with estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score following European League Against Rheumatism response; annual costs, and utility, per HAQ band; trajectory of HAQ for patients taking bDMARD; and trajectory of HAQ for patients using nonbiologic therapy (NBT). Results were presented as those associated with the strategy with the median cost-effectiveness. Supplementary analyses were undertaken assessing the change in cost-effectiveness when only patients with the most severe prognoses taking NBT were provided with bDMARD treatment. The costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were compared with reported thresholds from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of £20,000 to £30,000 (US$24,700 to US$37,000). RESULTS: In the primary analyses, the cost per QALY of a bDMARD strategy was £41,600 for patients with severe RA and £51,100 for those with moderate to severe RA. Under the supplementary analyses, the cost per QALY fell to £25,300 for those with severe RA and to £28,500 for those with moderate to severe RA. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of bDMARD in RA in England is questionable and only meets current accepted levels in subsets of patients with the worst prognoses.

Economic evaluation of a brief education, self-management and upper limb exercise training in people with rheumatoid arthritis (EXTRA) programme: a trial-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of the Education, Self-management and Upper Limb Exercise Training in People with RA (EXTRA) programme compared with usual care. METHODS: A within-trial incremental cost-utility analysis was conducted with 108 participants randomized to either the EXTRA programme (n = 52) or usual care (n = 56). A health care perspective was assumed for the primary analysis with a 36 week follow-up. Resource use information was collected on interventions, medication, primary and secondary care contacts, private health care and social care costs. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire responses at baseline, 12 and 36 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, total QALYs gained were higher in the EXTRA programme, leading to an increase of 0.0296 QALYs. The mean National Health Service (NHS) costs per participant were slightly higher in the EXTRA programme (by £82), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2770 per additional QALY gained. Thus the EXTRA programme was cost effective from an NHS perspective when assessed against the threshold of £20 000-£30 000/QALY gained. Overall, costs were lower in the EXTRA programme compared with usual care, suggesting it was the dominant treatment option from a societal perspective. At a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY gained, there was a 65% probability that the EXTRA programme was the most cost-effective option. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for missing data, changing the cost perspective and removing cost outliers. CONCLUSION: The physiotherapist-led EXTRA programme represents a cost-effective use of resources compared with usual care and leads to lower health care costs and work absence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register; http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/ (ISRCTN14268051).

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis. DESIGN: An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials. SETTING: The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Active RA patients eligible for TNFis. INTERVENTIONS: The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health Assessment Questionnaire disability progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and analysis of two inception cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: The Health Assessment Questionnaire is widely used for patients with inflammatory polyarthritis (IP) and its subset, rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we evaluated the progression of HAQ scores in RA (i) by systematically reviewing the published literature on the methods used to assess changes in functional disability over time and (ii) to study in detail HAQ progression in two large prospective observational studies from the UK. METHODS: Data from two large inception cohorts, ERAS and NOAR, were studied to determine trajectories of HAQ progression over time by applying latent class growth models (LCGMs) to each dataset separately. Age, sex, baseline DAS28, symptom duration, rheumatoid factor, fulfilment of the 1987 ACR criteria and socio-economic status (SES) were included as potential predictors of HAQ trajectory subgroup membership. RESULTS: The literature search identified 49 studies showing that HAQ progression has mainly been based on average changes in the total study population. In the HAQ progression study, a LCGM with four HAQ trajectory subgroups was selected as providing the best fit in both cohorts. In both the cohorts, older age, female sex, longer symptom duration, fulfilment of the 1987 ACR criteria, higher DAS28 and lower SES were associated with increased likelihood of membership of subgroups with worse HAQ progression. CONCLUSION: Four distinct HAQ trajectory subgroups were derived from the ERAS and NOAR cohorts. The fact that the subgroups identified were nearly identical supports their validity. Identifying distinct groups of patients who are at risk of poor functional outcome may help to target therapy to those who are most likely to benefit.

Waiting time predicts survival after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a cohort study using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry.

Recipients of liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have an 8% to 20% risk of HCC recurrence. Single-center studies suggest that a period of waiting after HCC therapy may facilitate the selection of patients at low risk for post-LT HCC recurrence and mortality. We evaluated whether a longer waiting time after Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) prioritization for HCC predicts longer post-LT survival. From the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, we selected 2 groups registered for LT between March 2005 and March 2009: (1) HCC patients receiving MELD prioritization and (2) non-HCC patients. Patients were stratified by their MELD status at LT (a marker of time on the wait list after HCC MELD prioritization) and were followed from LT until death or censoring through October 2012. By comparing post-LT survival to intention-to-treat (ITT) survival from registration, we assessed predictors of post-LT survival and estimated the benefit of LT. The median MELD scores at LT were 22 (HCC) and 24 (non-HCC). A higher MELD score at LT was independently associated with lower post-LT mortality in the HCC group [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73-0.98] and higher post-LT mortality in the non-HCC group (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.15-1.25). Compared with the HCC group, the non-HCC group had lower post-LT mortality [relative risk (RR) = 0.85, log-rank P < 0.01] but higher ITT mortality (RR = 1.25, log-rank P < 0.01) because of a 33 percentage point lower probability of undergoing LT. In conclusion, a longer waiting time before LT for HCC predicted longer post-LT survival in a national transplant registry. Delaying LT for HCC may reduce disparities in ITT survival and access to LT among different indications and thereby improve system utility and organ allocation equity for the overall pool of LT candidates.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies using combination disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of combination DMARDs with short-term glucocorticoids in early active RA using data from the 2-year Combination of Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA (CARDERA) trial. METHODS: CARDERA enrolled 467 patients with active RA of <24-months duration. All patients received MTX; half received step-down prednisolone and half ciclosporin in a placebo-controlled factorial design. Differences in mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 24-months follow-up were estimated using patient-level data from a UK health service perspective and 2011-12 costs. RESULTS: Two-year costs for each treatment strategy showed primary care costs were negligible across all groups. Drug costs were lowest with MTX/ciclosporin and triple therapy. Hospital costs were lowest with MTX/prednisolone and triple therapy. Triple therapy was least costly and most effective; it dominated all other strategies. At positive values for a QALY in the typical UK range (£20 000-30 000) the probability that triple therapy was the most cost-effective strategy was 0.9. Results were robust to methods used to impute missing data. CONCLUSION: Intensive treatment of early RA with triple therapy (two DMARDs and short-term glucocorticoids) is both clinically effective and cost effective.

Nonvolitional assessment of muscle endurance in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: there is no relationship between patient-reported fatigue and muscle fatigability.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether muscle endurance differs between IIM patients and controls and if a relationship exists between perceived fatigue and poor muscle endurance. METHODS: Quadriceps contractility, measured using femoral nerve stimulation (TwQ), and strength, measured using maximal voluntary contraction (MVCQ), were assessed in 20 IIM patients and matched controls. Quadriceps endurance was assessed using repetitive electrical stimulation (3 minutes). Time for force to fall to 70% initial force was determined (T70). Reported fatigue was measured using the FACIT-F/Fatigue Severity Scales. RESULTS: TwQ and MVCQ were lower and perceived fatigue greater for patients. There was no difference in T70 between groups. No relationships were observed between perceived fatigue and endurance (T70). CONCLUSIONS: IIM patients reported more fatigue and were weaker than controls, but there was no difference in muscle endurance. Endurance and strength were unrelated to reported fatigue measures. Mechanisms driving perceived IIM fatigue are likely to be multifactorial.

Hydroxychloroquine effectiveness in reducing symptoms of hand osteoarthritis (HERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis, causing significant joint pain and disability. It is already a major cause of healthcare expenditure and its incidence will further increase with the ageing population. Current treatments for OA have major limitations and new analgesic treatments are needed. Synovitis is prevalent in OA and is associated with pain. Hydroxychloroquine is used in routine practice for treating synovitis in inflammatory arthritides, such as rheumatoid arthritis. We propose that treating patients with symptomatic hand OA with hydroxychloroquine will be a practical and safe treatment to reduce synovitis and pain. METHODS/DESIGN: HERO is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 252 subjects with symptomatic hand OA will be recruited across primary and secondary care sites in the UK and randomized on a 1:1 basis to active treatment or placebo for 12 months. Daily medication dose will range from 200 to 400 mg according to ideal body weight. The primary endpoint is change in average hand pain during the previous two weeks (measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS)) between baseline and six months. Secondary endpoints include other self-reported pain, function and quality-of-life measures and radiographic structural change at 12 months. A health economics analysis will also be performed. An ultrasound substudy will be conducted to examine baseline levels of synovitis. Linear and logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups using univariable and multivariable modelling analyses. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The HERO trial is designed to examine whether hydroxychloroquine is an effective analgesic treatment for OA and whether it provides any long-term structural benefit. The ultrasound substudy will address whether baseline synovitis is a predictor of therapeutic response. This will potentially provide a new treatment for OA, which could be of particular use in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91859104.

Payers' views on treating-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis: an English perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Delivering treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves commitments from both providers and payers for healthcare. We have summarised the perspectives of payers from England, where the National Health Service (NHS) provides universal care that is without cost for patients. METHODS: We reviewed the literature - including that from the NHS and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) - concerning payers views on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies for RA. RESULTS: Commissioners pay for government-funded English healthcare and providers (divided between General Practitioners (GPs) and Hospital Consultants) and deliver it according to NICE guidance. Treat-to-target using intensive disease-modifying drug (DMARD) combinations with glucocorticoids are recommended for early active RA. Treatment tapering is recommended when disease control is achieved. Some aspects of treat-to-target are recommended in established RA, including the early management of flares and the use of biologics in persistently active RA that is non-responsive to DMARDs. However, treat-to-target is not widely recommended in established RA, mainly because the evidence base is incomplete. English healthcare is moving towards quality care becoming the main driver and is adopting 'integrated care' involving both GPs and consultants for most long-term disorders; RA is likely to be included within these approaches, which are unlikely to focus specifically on treat-to-target. CONCLUSIONS: Payers strongly support treat-to-target in early RA. In established disease there is limited enthusiasm; without stronger evidence for efficacy and cost-effectiveness this is unlikely to change.

Cost-effectiveness of combination nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and benefits of alternative combination strategies of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and DMARD monotherapy in patients with early, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were drawn from randomized controlled trials that compared DMARD monotherapy or any DMARD combination strategy, with or without combined steroid therapy. Mixed treatment comparison methods were used to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different strategies. A mathematical model was developed to compare the longterm costs and benefits of the alternative strategies, combining data from a variety of sources. Costs were considered from a health sector viewpoint and benefits were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS: If decision makers use a threshold of £20,000 (US$29,000) per QALY, then the strategies most likely to be cost-effective are either DMARD combination therapy with downward titration (probability of being optimal = 0.50) or intensive, triple DMARD combination therapy (probability of being optimal = 0.43). The intensive DMARD strategy generated an additional cost of £27,392 per additional QALY gained compared to the downward titration strategy. Other combination strategies were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared to DMARD monotherapy. Results were robust to a range of scenario sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Combination DMARD therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to DMARD monotherapy where treatment entails rapid downward dose titration or intensive, triple DMARD therapy.

Perceived barriers to integrated care in rheumatoid arthritis: views of recipients and providers of care in an inner-city setting.

BACKGROUND: A number of recent reports published in the UK have put the quality of care of adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) centre stage. These documents set high standards for health care professionals and commissioning bodies that need to be implemented into routine clinical practice. We therefore have obtained the views of recipients and providers of care in inner city settings as to what they perceive are the barriers to providing integrated care. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and face to face interviews between 2005-8 with 79 participants (patients, carers, specialist medical and nursing outpatient staff and general practitioners (GPs)) working in or attending three hospitals and three primary care trusts (PCT). RESULTS: Three barriers were identified that stood in the way of seamless integrated care in RA from the perspective of patients, carers, specialists and GPs: (i) early referral (e.g. 'gate keeper's role of GPs); (ii) limitations of ongoing care for established RA (e.g. lack of consultation time in secondary care) and (iii) management of acute flares (e.g. pressure on overbooked clinics). CONCLUSION: This timely study of the multi-perspective views of recipients and providers of care was conducted during the time of publications of many important reports in the United Kingdom (UK) that highlighted key components in the provision of high quality care for adults with RA. To achieve seamless care across primary and secondary care requires organisational changes, greater personal and professional collaboration and GP education about RA.

Rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis is characterised by persistent synovitis, systemic inflammation, and autoantibodies (particularly to rheumatoid factor and citrullinated peptide). 50% of the risk for development of rheumatoid arthritis is attributable to genetic factors. Smoking is the main environmental risk. In industrialised countries, rheumatoid arthritis affects 0·5-1·0% of adults, with 5-50 per 100 000 new cases annually. The disorder is most typical in women and elderly people. Uncontrolled active rheumatoid arthritis causes joint damage, disability, decreased quality of life, and cardiovascular and other comorbidities. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the key therapeutic agents, reduce synovitis and systemic inflammation and improve function. The leading DMARD is methotrexate, which can be combined with other drugs of this type. Biological agents are used when arthritis is uncontrolled or toxic effects arise with DMARDs. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors were the first biological agents, followed by abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Infections and high costs restrict prescription of biological agents. Long-term remission induced by intensive, short-term treatment selected by biomarker profiles is the ultimate goal.

Clinical effectiveness of biologics in clinical practice.

TNF inhibitors are currently considered both effective and cost-effective in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly in patients who have not responded fully to methotrexate. There is substantial doubt about the cost-effectiveness of TNF inhibitors as initial treatment for active RA. New data from the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases now question the current consensus in methotrexate failures. The data suggest that in routine clinical practice TNF inhibitors provide only modest incremental benefits over best conventional therapy. If confirmed, these observational studies suggest that the economic argument underpinning the widespread use of TNF inhibitors in established RA is unsustainable.