OBJECTIVES: Compare the benefits and harms of drug therapies for adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 1 year of diagnosis, updating the findings on early RA from the 2012 review.
DATA SOURCES: English-language articles identified through MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, gray literature, the previous 2012 review, expert recommendations, reference lists of published literature, and supplemental evidence data requests from January 2011 to October 5, 2017.
REVIEW METHODS: Literature was synthesized qualitatively in narrative form and summary tables within and between corticosteroids and classes of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Additionally, combination treatment strategies were examined. We conducted network meta-analysis for five outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 50-percent improvement (ACR50), remission based on Disease Activity Score (DAS), radiographic joint damage, all discontinuations, and discontinuations due to adverse events. Eligibility for network meta-analyses required the following: (1) patients with early RA had not attempted prior treatment with methotrexate (MTX), (2) doses of treatments were within ranges approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (3) length of followup was similar, and (4) studies were double-blinded randomized controlled trials of low or medium risk of bias.
RESULTS: We analyzed 49 studies: 41 RCTs and 8 observational studies reported in 124 published articles. All included studies enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. A combination of corticosteroids plus MTX achieved higher remission rates than with MTX monotherapy (low strength of evidence [SOE]). Combination therapy with TNF (tumor necrosis factor) or non-TNF biologics plus MTX improved disease control, remission, and functional capacity compared with monotherapy with either MTX or a biologic (low to moderate SOE). Network meta-analyses found higher ACR50 response for combination therapy of biologics plus MTX than for MTX monotherapy (range of relative risk, 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 1.38] to 1.57 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.88]). In available data, consisting mostly of clinical trials, no significant differences emerged between any DMARDs for rates of discontinuation attributable to adverse events or serious adverse events (low SOE for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab, or abatacept with MTX, and moderate SOE for rituximab or tocilizumab with MTX). Data about subgroups (based on disease activity, prior therapy, demographics, and the presence of other serious conditions) were insufficient. No difference in findings were noted in MTX naïve and resistant populations. We found no studies of biosimilars for patients with early RA.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative synthesis and network meta-analyses suggest that the combination of MTX with TNF or non-TNF biologics improves disease activity and remission when compared with biologic monotherapy or a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy in patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. Overall rates of adverse events and discontinuation were similar among patients given csDMARDs, TNF biologics, and non-TNF biologics. We did not find eligible studies of biosimilars.
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.
OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: An SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials.
RESULTS: For GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.
BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.
METHODS: We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
MAIN RESULTS: 158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine (“triple therapy”), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.
OBJECTIVE: To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate.
DESIGN: Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest.
MAIN OUTCOMES: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior.
RESULTS: 158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.
Compare the benefits and harms of drug therapies for adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within 1 year of diagnosis, updating the findings on early RA from the 2012 review.
DATA SOURCES:
English-language articles identified through MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, gray literature, the previous 2012 review, expert recommendations, reference lists of published literature, and supplemental evidence data requests from January 2011 to October 5, 2017.
REVIEW METHODS:
Literature was synthesized qualitatively in narrative form and summary tables within and between corticosteroids and classes of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Additionally, combination treatment strategies were examined. We conducted network meta-analysis for five outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 50-percent improvement (ACR50), remission based on Disease Activity Score (DAS), radiographic joint damage, all discontinuations, and discontinuations due to adverse events. Eligibility for network meta-analyses required the following: (1) patients with early RA had not attempted prior treatment with methotrexate (MTX), (2) doses of treatments were within ranges approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (3) length of followup was similar, and (4) studies were double-blinded randomized controlled trials of low or medium risk of bias.
RESULTS:
We analyzed 49 studies: 41 RCTs and 8 observational studies reported in 124 published articles. All included studies enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. A combination of corticosteroids plus MTX achieved higher remission rates than with MTX monotherapy (low strength of evidence [SOE]). Combination therapy with TNF (tumor necrosis factor) or non-TNF biologics plus MTX improved disease control, remission, and functional capacity compared with monotherapy with either MTX or a biologic (low to moderate SOE). Network meta-analyses found higher ACR50 response for combination therapy of biologics plus MTX than for MTX monotherapy (range of relative risk, 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 1.38] to 1.57 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.88]). In available data, consisting mostly of clinical trials, no significant differences emerged between any DMARDs for rates of discontinuation attributable to adverse events or serious adverse events (low SOE for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, infliximab, or abatacept with MTX, and moderate SOE for rituximab or tocilizumab with MTX). Data about subgroups (based on disease activity, prior therapy, demographics, and the presence of other serious conditions) were insufficient. No difference in findings were noted in MTX naïve and resistant populations. We found no studies of biosimilars for patients with early RA.
CONCLUSIONS:
Qualitative synthesis and network meta-analyses suggest that the combination of MTX with TNF or non-TNF biologics improves disease activity and remission when compared with biologic monotherapy or a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) monotherapy in patients with moderate to high disease activity at baseline as measured with mean or median DAS 28 scores. Overall rates of adverse events and discontinuation were similar among patients given csDMARDs, TNF biologics, and non-TNF biologics. We did not find eligible studies of biosimilars.
