Fred Wolfe

The effect of glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate on the progression of knee osteoarthritis: A report from the glucosamine/chondroitin arthritis intervention trial

OBJECTIVE Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee causes significant morbidity and current medical treatment is limited to symptom relief, while therapies able to slow structural damage remain elusive. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on progressive loss of joint space width (JSW) in patients with knee OA. METHODS A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at 9 sites in the United States as part of the Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT), enrolled 572 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence [K/L] grade 2 or grade 3 changes and JSW of at least 2 mm at baseline). Patients with primarily lateral compartment narrowing at any time point were excluded. Patients who had been randomized to 1 of the 5 groups in the GAIT continued to receive glucosamine 500 mg 3 times daily, CS 400 mg 3 times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The minimum medial tibiofemoral JSW was measured at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in JSW from baseline. RESULTS The mean JSW loss at 2 years in knees with OA in the placebo group, adjusted for design and clinical factors, was 0.166 mm. No statistically significant difference in mean JSW loss was observed in any treatment group compared with the placebo group. Treatment effects on K/L grade 2 knees, but not on K/L grade 3 knees, showed a trend toward improvement relative to the placebo group. The power of the study was diminished by the limited sample size, variance of JSW measurement, and a smaller than expected loss in JSW. CONCLUSION At 2 years, no treatment achieved a predefined threshold of clinically important difference in JSW loss as compared with placebo. However, knees with K/L grade 2 radiographic OA appeared to have the greatest potential for modification by these treatments.

Clinical efficacy and safety of glucosamine, chondroitin sulphate, their combination, celecoxib or placebo taken to treat osteoarthritis of the knee: 2-year results from GAIT

Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and functional limitation in older adults, yet longer-term studies of medical treatment of OA are limited. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glucosamine and chondroitin sulphate (CS), alone or in combination, as well as celecoxib and placebo on painful knee OA over 2 years. Methods A 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at nine sites in the US ancillary to the Glucosamine/chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial, enrolled 662 patients with knee OA who satisfied radiographic criteria (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2 or 3 changes and baseline joint space width of at least 2 mm). This subset continued to receive their randomised treatment: glucosamine 500 mg three times daily, CS 400 mg three times daily, the combination of glucosamine and CS, celecoxib 200 mg daily, or placebo over 24 months. The primary outcome was a 20% reduction in Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain over 24 months. Secondary outcomes included an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology/Osteoarthritis Research Society International response and change from baseline in WOMAC pain and function. Results Compared with placebo, the odds of achieving a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain were celecoxib: 1.21, glucosamine: 1.16, combination glucosamine/CS: 0.83 and CS alone: 0.69, and were not statistically significant. Conclusions Over 2 years, no treatment achieved a clinically important difference in WOMAC pain or function as compared with placebo. However, glucosamine and celecoxib showed beneficial but not significant trends. Adverse reactions were similar among treatment groups and serious adverse events were rare for all treatments.

Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations.

OBJECTIVE To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS The project followed the EULAR standardized operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: 1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); 2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and 3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature, the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: 1) disease activity response and disease activity states; 2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; 3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); 4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; 5) time to onset of the primary outcome; 6) sustainability of the primary outcome; 7) fatigue. CONCLUSION These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonize the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

A Comparison of Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Selected European and U.S. Rheumatoid Arthritis Registries

PURPOSE Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. However, results from RCTs may not be generalizable to clinical practice because of their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment of safety using RCT data also is limited by short duration of follow-up and relatively small sample sizes, which generally preclude analysis of longer term outcomes and rare adverse events. In rheumatology, various observational cohorts and registries have been created to complement information obtained from RCTs, some with the primary purpose of monitoring effectiveness and safety of biologic agents. Most registries are either drug based or disease based. These registries include patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases including RA. METHODS To provide a qualitative comparison of selected U.S. and European rheumatoid arthritis (RA) biologics registries and cohorts including ARTIS, BIOBADASER, BSRBR, BRASS, CLEAR, CORRONA, NDB, RABBIT, SCQM, and VARA. RESULTS A careful comparison of these registries, as provided in this article, can provide a basis for understanding the many similarities and differences inherent in their design, as well as societal context and content, all of which can significantly impact their results and comparisons across registers. SUMMARY The increasing use of biologic agents for treatment of rheumatic diseases has raised important questions about cost, safety, and effectiveness of these agents. The unique and variable features of patient populations and registry designs in Europe and the U.S. provide valuable and complementary data on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologic agents to what can be derived from RCTs.

Biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in the Medicare program: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE Since the introduction of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act and its associated demonstration project, coverage of selected biologic drugs has been expanded for Medicare beneficiaries. For rheumatoid arthritis, coverage was extended to etanercept, adalimumab, and anakinra in addition to the previously covered infliximab. We undertook to develop a model to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) generated by each of the 4 biologic agents. METHODS Data were drawn from meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and from a large longitudinal outcomes databank. Uncertainty was addressed using probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses. A lifetime horizon and Medicare viewpoint were adopted. RESULTS In the base case analysis, anakinra was the least effective and least costly strategy. Etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were similar in terms of effectiveness, but infliximab was more costly. If decision makers are willing to pay a maximum of

The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

50,000/QALY, the probability that infliximab is cost-effective is <1%. Findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Only if the dose of infliximab remains constant over time is this likely to be a cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSION Infliximab is unlikely to be cost-effective in the Medicare population compared with either etanercept or adalimumab. Anakinra is substantially less costly but is also less effective than the 3 tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors.

Pain as an important predictor of psychosocial health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective. This study aims to provide robust estimates of EQ-5D as a function of the HAQ and pain in patients with RA. Method. Repeated observations were made of patients diagnosed with RA in a US observational cohort (n = 100 398 observations) who provided data on HAQ, pain on a visual analogue scale and the EQ-5D questionnaire. We used a bespoke statistical method based on mixture modelling to appropriately reflect the characteristics of the EQ-5D instrument and to compare this with results from standard multiple regression. Results. EQ-5D can be predicted from summary HAQ and pain scores. We identify four different classes of respondents who differ in terms of disease severity. Unlike the multiple regression, the mixture model exhibits very good fit to the data and does not suffer from problems of bias or predict values outside the feasible range. Conclusion. It is appropriate to model the relationship between HAQ and EQ-5D but only if suitable statistical methods are applied. Linear models underestimate the quality-adjusted life year benefits, and therefore the cost-effectiveness, of therapies. The bespoke mixture model approach outlined here overcomes this problem. The addition of pain as an explanatory variable greatly improves the estimates. Reimbursement agencies rely on these types of analyses when formulating policy on the use of new drug therapies. Clinicians as well as economists should be concerned with these issues.

A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes.

To examine the evolution of psychosocial aspects of health‐related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and to identify their predictors.

Converting modified health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), multidimensional HAQ, and HAQII scores into original HAQ scores using models developed with a large cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients

Background: Analysts frequently estimate health state utility values from other outcomes. Utility values like EQ-5D have characteristics that make standard statistical methods inappropriate. We have developed a bespoke, mixture model approach to directly estimate EQ-5D. An indirect method, “response mapping,” first estimates the level on each of the 5 dimensions of the EQ-5D and then calculates the expected tariff score. These methods have never previously been compared. Methods: We use a large observational database from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (N = 100,398). Direct estimation of UK EQ-5D scores as a function of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), pain, and age was performed with a limited dependent variable mixture model. Indirect modeling was undertaken with a set of generalized ordered probit models with expected tariff scores calculated mathematically. Linear regression was reported for comparison purposes. Impact on cost-effectiveness was demonstrated with an existing model. Results: The linear model fits poorly, particularly at the extremes of the distribution. The bespoke mixture model and the indirect approaches improve fit over the entire range of EQ-5D. Mean average error is 10% and 5% lower compared with the linear model, respectively. Root mean squared error is 3% and 2% lower. The mixture model demonstrates superior performance to the indirect method across almost the entire range of pain and HAQ. These lead to differences in cost-effectiveness of up to 20%. Conclusions: There are limited data from patients in the most severe HAQ health states. Modeling of EQ-5D from clinical measures is best performed directly using the bespoke mixture model. This substantially outperforms the indirect method in this example. Linear models are inappropriate, suffer from systematic bias, and generate values outside the feasible range.

Patient Repositioning Reproducibility of Joint Space Width Measurements on Hand Radiographs

The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) is the gold standard functional status questionnaire in rheumatology, but it is lengthy. Three shorter versions, the modified HAQ (MHAQ), the Multidimensional HAQ (MDHAQ), and the HAQII are often used in outcomes research as HAQ substitutes. We developed conversion formulas between these modified versions and the original HAQ.