Efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and tofacitinib: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review assessing the efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two systematic reviews of the literature using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were performed from 2009 until January 2013 to assess the efficacy of csDMARDs (as monotherapy or combination therapy) in adults with RA, and the efficacy of glucocorticoids in early RA. A third systematic review was performed until March 2013 to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib by meta-analysis. RESULTS: For glucocorticoids, of 222 hits, five publications relating to four new trials were analysed for efficacy, confirming that initial treatment of RA with low-dose prednisone plus methotrexate (MTX) results in better clinical and structural outcomes at 1 and 2 years than treatment with MTX alone. For csDMARDs, of 498 studies, only two new studies were randomised controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy with MTX in combination with another csDMARD without differences in glucocorticoid usage. Using tight control principles, clinical outcomes were no better with immediate triple therapy than with 'step-up' therapy. For tofacitinib, the pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that tofacitinib was more efficacious on signs and symptoms, disability and appeared to be more efficacious on structural damage than control treatment with placebo (OR (95% CI)--American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response: 2.44 (1.97 to 3.02)) or treatment with MTX (ACR20 response: 2.38 (1.66 to 3.43)). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of low-dose glucocorticoids to csDMARD therapy produces benefits in early RA. Under tight control conditions, combination therapy with csDMARDs is no better than MTX monotherapy. Tofacitinib is a new DMARD with proven efficacy.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib-containing treatment sequences versus sequences containing only standard biological therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR population) and in patients previously treated with methotrexate (MTX) who show an inadequate response to second-line therapy with any tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi-IR population). METHODS:A patient-level microsimulation model estimated, from the perspective of the Spanish Public NHS, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences starting with tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) followed by biological therapies versus sequences of biological treatments only. Concomitant treatment with MTX was considered. Model's parameters comprised demographic and clinical inputs (initial Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score and clinical response to short- and long-term treatment). Efficacy was measured by means of HAQ score changes using mixed treatment comparisons and data from long-term extension (LTE) trials. Serious adverse events (SAEs) data were derived from the literature. Total cost estimation (€, 2018) included drug acquisition, parenteral administration, disease progression and SAE management. RESULTS:In the csDMARD-IR population, sequences starting with tofacitinib proved dominant options (more QALYs and lower costs) versus the corresponding sequences without tofacitinib. In the TNFi-IR population, first-line treatment with tofacitinib+MTX followed by scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX proved dominant versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX; and tofacitinib+MTX?scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX was less effective but remained a cost-saving option. CONCLUSIONS:Inclusion of tofacitinib seems a dominant strategy in moderate-to-severe RA patients after csDMARDs failure. Tofacitinib, as initial third-line therapy, proved a cost-saving strategy (€-?337,489/QALY foregone) in moderate-to-severe TNFi-IR RA patients. Key points • Therapeutical approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consisted in sequences of several therapies during patient lifetime. • Treatment sequences initiating with tofacitinib followed by biological drugs provided higher health effects in csDMARDs-IR population, compared with sequences containing only biological drugs. • In both csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR RA populations, initiating treatment with tofacitinib was associated to lower treatment costs for the Spanish National Health System.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR). METHODS:A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28) <?2.6. In addition, serious infections and serious adverse events (SI/SAE) were examined at 24 weeks. RESULTS:Nine trials were selected for the NMA. Sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority versus adalimumab monotherapy on all efficacy outcomes and versus tofacitinib monotherapy on ACR20. Compared with csDMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority on ACR 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28 <?2.6 but had similar efficacy on HAQ-DI. Efficacy of sarilumab 200 mg was similar versus certolizumab, etanercept, tofacitinib and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg monotherapy across all efficacy outcomes. SI/SAE appeared similar for sarilumab 200 mg versus all comparators. CONCLUSION:In csDMARD-IR patients, sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy has superior efficacy and similar safety versus csDMARDs, superior efficacy and similar safety versus adalimumab, and similar efficacy and safety versus bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. FUNDING:Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This study assessed if concomitant use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or corticosteroids altered the response or safety outcomes to baricitinib in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS:Patients with???6 swollen/tender joints and no prior biologic DMARD were eligible for study inclusion. In RA-BUILD, csDMARD-inadequate responder (IR) patients were randomized to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily (QD). In RA-BEAM, methotrexate (MTX)-IR patients were randomized to placebo QD, baricitinib 4-mg QD, or adalimumab 40-mg biweekly. Patients continued background csDMARD (including MTX) therapy. This post hoc analysis of placebo and baricitinib 4-mg patients assessed the number and type of concomitant csDMARDS and concurrent corticosteroid use. RESULTS:From 716 placebo patients, 71, 21, and 6% were taking MTX alone, MTX?+???1 csDMARD, and non-MTX csDMARDs, respectively; from 714 baricitinib patients, the rates were 74, 18, and 6%; 56% of placebo and 55% of baricitinib patients used corticosteroids at baseline (mean dose, 6.0 mg/day for both groups); patients continued use throughout the studies. The odds ratios for achieving American College of Rheumatology response at the 20% improvement level (ACR20) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)???10 at week 12 favored baricitinib for most subgroups; no significant interactions were observed. Rates of adverse events were similar regardless of csDMARD group or corticosteroid use. There were numerically more serious adverse events in placebo patients taking corticosteroids (4.2 vs. 1.6%) and a higher rate of discontinuations in baricitinib patients taking corticosteroids (4.1 vs. 1.2%). CONCLUSIONS:Baricitinib was efficacious regardless of concomitant use of csDMARDs or corticosteroids; the incidence of adverse events was similar across all groups of patients. FUNDING:Eli Lilly and Company and Incyte Corporation.
Project description:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ), and the risk appears to be increased in patients treated with tofacitinib. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether concomitant treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or glucocorticoids (GCs) contributes to the increased risk of HZ in RA patients treated with tofacitinib.HZ cases were identified from the databases of 2 phase I, 9 phase II, 6 phase III, and 2 long-term extension studies of tofacitinib in RA patients. Crude incidence rates (IRs) of all HZ events (serious and nonserious) per 100 patient-years (with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were calculated for unique patients. Within phase III studies, we described HZ rates according to concomitant csDMARD treatment and baseline GC use. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate HZ risk factors across studies.Across all studies (6,192 patients; 16,839 patient-years), HZ was reported in 636 tofacitinib-treated patients (IR 4.0, 95% CI 3.7-4.4). In most cases (93%), HZ was classified as nonserious, and the majority of patients (94%) had involvement of only 1 dermatome. HZ IRs varied across regions, from 2.4 (95% CI 2.0-2.9) in Eastern Europe to 8.0 (95% CI 6.6-9.6) in Japan and 8.4 (95% CI 6.4-10.9) in Korea. Within phase III studies, HZ IRs varied according to tofacitinib dose, background csDMARD treatment, and baseline use of GCs. The IRs were numerically lowest for monotherapy with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily without GCs (IR 0.56 [95% CI 0.07-2.01]) and highest for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily with csDMARDs and GCs (IR 5.44 [95% CI 3.72-7.68]). Age, GC use, tofacitinib dose, and enrollment within Asia were independent risk factors for HZ.Patients receiving treatment with tofacitinib and GCs appear to have a greater risk of developing HZ compared with patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy without GCs.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with established clinical efficacy. However, little is known about their efficacy compared with each other. This network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated the comparative efficacy of JAK inhibitors currently approved for RA. METHODS:A targeted literature review was conducted for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of three approved JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) as monotherapy or combination therapy among patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR). Using Bayesian NMA, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and clinical remission (defined as DAS28-CRP?<?2.6) were evaluated separately at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS:Eleven RCTs were identified and included in the NMA. All JAK inhibitors demonstrated significantly better efficacy than csDMARD. Among combination therapies, upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest 12-week ACR50 responses (median [95% credible interval]: 43.4% [33.4%, 54.5%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (38.7% [28.6%, 49.8%]), baricitinib 2 mg (37.1% [25.0%, 50.6%]), and baricitinib 4 mg (36.7%, [27.2%, 47.0%]). Similar results were observed for ACR20/70 and at week 24. Upadacitinib 15 mg?+?csDMARD was also found to have the highest clinical remission rates at week 12 (29.8% [16.9%, 47.0%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (24.3%, [12.7%, 40.2%]), baricitinib 4 mg (22.8%, [11.8%, 37.5%]), and baricitinib 2 mg (20.1%, [8.6%, 37.4%]). Similar results were seen at week 24. Among monotherapies, upadacitinib had a higher ACR50 response (38.5% [25.3%, 53.2%]) than tofacitinib (30.4% [18.3%, 45.5%]). The differences in efficacy measures were not statistically significant between the JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS:The NMA found that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily had numerically higher efficacy in terms of ACR response and clinical remission among approved JAK combination therapies and monotherapies for csDMARD-IR patients with RA.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry. METHODS:Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months. RESULTS:The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0-34.1%), 33.9-47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7-22.1% over 24 months). CONCLUSION:An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.
Project description:Aiming at rapid decrease of disease activity, there has been a trend to start with higher doses of methotrexate (MTX) in patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), both as monotherapy and in combination with other antirheumatic drugs. We aimed to study the relationship between clinical response and MTX dose as monotherapy or combination therapy in patients with early RA.Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with early RA, from a large international observational database, the METEOR database, were selected if MTX was part of their initial treatment. Patients were divided into four groups: MTX monotherapy, MTX?+?convention synthetic (cs)DMARDs, MTX?+?glucocorticoids or MTX?+?biologic (b)DMARDs. MTX dose was dichotomized: low dose ?10 mg/week; high dose ?15 mg/week. Linear mixed model analyses for the Disease Activity Score (DAS), DAS in 28 joints (DAS28) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) were performed in each medication group, with MTX dose and time as covariates. Outcomes were assessed from baseline until 3-6 months follow up. Associations were adjusted for potential confounding by indication using propensity score (PS) modelling.For patients starting MTX monotherapy (n?=?523), MTX?+?csDMARDs (n?=?266) or MTX?+?glucocorticoids (n?=?615), the PS-adjusted effects of MTX dose (high versus low) on the DAS, DAS28 and HAQ were small and not clinically meaningful. Patients starting MTX?+?bDMARDs were disregarded due to low numbers (n =11).In patients newly diagnosed with RA, no clinical benefit of high compared to low initial MTX doses was found for MTX monotherapy or for MTX combination therapy with csDMARDs or glucocorticoids.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Methotrexate (MTX) remains the anchor drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, but is poorly tolerated or contraindicated in some patients. There is a wealth of data supporting the use of abatacept in combination with MTX, but data on alternative conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) combinations with abatacept are scarce. METHODS:In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, efficacy and safety data were extracted from abatacept RA studies in which combination with csDMARDs other than MTX was permitted: three interventional trials (ATTAIN, ASSURE, and ARRIVE) and one real-world study (ACTION). Patients with moderate-to-severe RA received abatacept in combination with MTX, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, or leflunomide for 6 months to 2 years according to the study design. Change from baseline in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); all studies) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP); ATTAIN, ARRIVE, and ACTION), American College of Rheumatology response rates (ATTAIN), and safety were assessed for individual and pooled csDMARD combinations for each trial. A meta-analysis was also performed on pooled data for HAQ-DI and DAS28 (CRP) across interventional trials. RESULTS:Across all four studies, 731 patients received abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD (hydroxychloroquine n?=?152; sulfasalazine n?=?123; azathioprine n?=?59; and leflunomide n?=?397) and 2382 patients received abatacept plus MTX. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI scores for abatacept plus MTX (all csDMARDs pooled) vs abatacept plus a non-MTX csDMARD were -0.54 vs -0.44 (ATTAIN), -0.43 vs -0.43 (ASSURE), and -0.39 vs -0.36 (ARRIVE). Mean changes from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) and ACR response rates were also similar with abatacept plus MTX or non-MTX csDMARDs. Data for individual non-MTX csDMARDs (pooled across studies) and real-world data were consistent with these findings. Rates of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, for abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD vs abatacept plus MTX were 35.7% vs 41.7% and 2.4% vs 2.3% (ATTAIN), 58.0% vs 55.9% and 4.2% vs 1.7% (ASSURE), and 38.1% vs 44.3% and 0.6% vs 2.9% (ARRIVE). CONCLUSIONS:Abatacept in combination with non-MTX csDMARDs is clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, providing similar benefits to those seen with abatacept plus MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048581 . Registered 2 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048932 . Registered 11 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124982 . Registered 30 June 2005. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109666 . Registered 8 April 2014.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:No published studies exist comparing the effectiveness of tofacitinib with other advanced therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world clinical practice. Here, we report differences in effectiveness of tofacitinib compared with standard of care, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), using US Corrona registry data. METHODS:This observational cohort study included RA patients receiving tofacitinib (from 6 November 2012; N?=?558) or TNFi (from 1 November 2001; N?=?8014) with or without MTX until 31 July 2016. Efficacy outcomes at 6 months included modified American College of Rheumatology 20% responses, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Pain. Outcomes were compared between patients receiving TNFi and tofacitinib with or without MTX and by line of therapy. Outcomes within therapy lines were compared using propensity-score matching; between-group differences were estimated using mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS:Patients receiving tofacitinib had longer RA duration and a greater proportion had previously received biologics than those receiving TNFi; other baseline characteristics were comparable. In patients receiving second- and third-line TNFi therapy, CDAI low disease activity/remission response rates were significantly better with concomitant MTX. Too few patients received tofacitinib as second line for meaningful assessment. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between tofacitinib as monotherapy and tofacitinib with concomitant MTX. CONCLUSIONS:In clinical practice, TNFi efficacy is improved with concomitant MTX in the second and third line. In the third/fourth line, patients are likely to achieve similar efficacy with tofacitinib monotherapy, or TNFi or tofacitinib in combination with MTX. FUNDING:Pfizer Inc.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS:Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care. RESULTS:Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold. CONCLUSION:In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment. FUNDING:Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.