Glen S. Hazlewood

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Traditional and Biologic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Objective. The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part 1 is reported here. Methods. The CRA Therapeutics Committee assembled a national working group of RA clinical experts, researchers, patient consumers, and a general practitioner. Treatment questions were developed a priori based on results of a national needs assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the grey literature. Guideline quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers, and guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The full working group reviewed the evidence tables and developed recommendations using a modified Delphi technique. Results. Five overarching principles and 26 recommendations addressing general RA management strategies and treatment with glucocorticoids and traditional and biologic DMARD were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and patients with RA. Conclusion. These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus considering the Canadian healthcare context with the intention of promoting best practices and improving healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

Comparative Effectiveness of Immunosuppressants and Biologics for Inducing and Maintaining Remission in Crohn's Disease: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS There is controversy regarding the best treatment for patients with Crohns disease because of the lack of direct comparative trials. We compared therapies for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with Crohns disease, based on direct and indirect evidence. METHODS We performed systematic reviews of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, through June 2014. We identified randomized controlled trials (N = 39) comparing methotrexate, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, vedolizumab, or combined therapies with placebo or an active agent for induction and maintenance of remission in adult patients with Crohns disease. Pairwise treatment effects were estimated through a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) with a 95% credible interval (CrI). RESULTS Infliximab, the combination of infliximab and azathioprine (infliximab + azathioprine), adalimumab, and vedolizumab were superior to placebo for induction of remission. In pair-wise comparisons of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.1; 95% CrI, 1.4-7.7) and adalimumab (OR, 2.1; 95% CrI, 1.0-4.6) were superior to certolizumab for induction of remission. All treatments were superior to placebo for maintaining remission, except for the combination of infliximab and methotrexate. Adalimumab, infliximab, and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine: adalimumab (OR, 2.9; 95% CrI, 1.6-5.1), infliximab (OR, 1.6; 95% CrI, 1.0-2.5), infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 3.0; 95% CrI, 1.7-5.5) for maintenance of remission. Adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine were superior to certolizumab: adalimumab (OR, 2.5; 95% CrI, 1.4-4.6) and infliximab + azathioprine (OR, 2.6; 95% CrI, 1.3-6.0). Adalimumab was superior to vedolizumab (OR, 2.4; 95% CrI, 1.2-4.6). CONCLUSIONS Based on a network meta-analysis, adalimumab and infliximab + azathioprine are the most effective therapies for induction and maintenance of remission of Crohns disease.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e Initiative

Objective. To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods. A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008–09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. Results. A total of 49 242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice. Conclusions. Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis

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.

Choosing Wisely: The Canadian Rheumatology Association’s List of 5 Items Physicians and Patients Should Question

Objective. To develop a list of 5 tests or treatments used in rheumatology that have evidence indicating that they may be unnecessary and thus should be reevaluated by rheumatology healthcare providers and patients. Methods. Using the Delphi method, a committee of 16 rheumatologists from across Canada and an allied health professional generated a list of tests, procedures, or treatments in rheumatology that may be unnecessary, nonspecific, or insensitive. Items with high content agreement and perceived relevance advanced to a survey of Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) members. CRA members ranked these top items based on content agreement, effect, and item ranking. A methodology subcommittee discussed the items in light of their relevance to rheumatology, potential effect on patients, and the member survey results. Five candidate items selected were then subjected to a literature review. A group of patient collaborators with rheumatic diseases also reviewed these items. Results. Sixty-four unique items were proposed and after 3 Delphi rounds, this list was narrowed down to 13 items. In the member-wide survey, 172 rheumatologists responded (36% of those contacted). The respondent characteristics were similar to the membership at large in terms of sex and geographical distribution. Five topics (antinuclear antibodies testing, HLA-B27 testing, bone density testing, bone scans, and bisphosphonate use) with high ratings on agreement and effect were chosen for literature review. Conclusion. The list of 5 items has identified starting points to promote discussion about practices that should be questioned to assist rheumatology healthcare providers in delivering high-quality care.

The comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA). Methods Patients with ERA (symptoms ≤1 year) initiating MTX therapy were included from a multicentre, prospective cohort study. We compared the effectiveness between starting with oral versus subcutaneous MTX over the first year. Longitudinal multivariable models, adjusted for potential baseline and time-varying confounders, were used to compare treatment changes due to inefficacy or toxicity and treatment efficacy (Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28), DAS-28 remission and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)). Results 666 patients were included (417 oral MTX, 249 subcutaneous MTX). Patients prescribed subcutaneous MTX were prescribed a higher dose of MTX (mean dose over first three months 22.3 mg vs 17.2 mg/week). At 1 year, 49% of patients initially treated with subcutaneous MTX had changed treatment compared with 77% treated with oral MTX. After adjusting for potential confounders, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure ((HR (95% CI) 0.55 (0.39 to 0.79)). Most treatment failures were due to inefficacy with no difference in failure due to toxicity. In multivariable models, subcutaneous MTX was also associated with lower average DAS-28 scores (mean difference (−0.38 (95% CI −0.64 to −0.10)) and a small difference in DAS-28 remission (OR 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). There was no significant difference in sustained remission or HAQ-DI (p values 0.43 and 0.75). Conclusions Initial treatment with subcutaneous MTX was associated with lower rates of treatment changes, no difference in toxicity and some improvements in disease control versus oral MTX over the first year in patients with ERA.

The Impact of Obesity on Remission and Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To summarize the relationship between obesity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); secondary objectives were to summarize other measures of treatment response and mortality in RA.

Development of Cardiovascular Quality Indicators for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from an International Expert Panel Using a Novel Online Process

Objective. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a high risk of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). We developed CVD quality indicators (QI) for screening and use in rheumatology clinics. Methods. A systematic review was conducted of the literature on CVD risk reduction in RA and the general population. Based on the best practices identified from this review, a draft set of 12 candidate QI were presented to a Canadian panel of rheumatologists and cardiologists (n = 6) from 3 academic centers to achieve consensus on the QI specifications. The resulting 11 QI were then evaluated by an online modified-Delphi panel of multidisciplinary health professionals and patients (n = 43) to determine their relevance, validity, and feasibility in 3 rounds of online voting and threaded discussion using a modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology. Results. Response rates for the online panel were 86%. All 11 QI were rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible (median rating ≥ 7 on a 1–9 scale), with no significant disagreement. The final QI set addresses the following themes: communication to primary care about increased CV risk in RA; CV risk assessment; defining smoking status and providing cessation counseling; screening and addressing hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes; exercise recommendations; body mass index screening and lifestyle counseling; minimizing corticosteroid use; and communicating to patients at high risk of CVD about the risks/benefits of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Conclusion. Eleven QI for CVD care in patients with RA have been developed and are rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible by an international multidisciplinary panel.

Determining Best Practices in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis by Comparing Differences in Treatment at Sites in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort

Objective. To determine site variation by comparing outcomes across sites in an early rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Methods. Sites from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort database with at least 40 patients were studied. Comparisons were made among sites in change in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), proportion of patients in DAS28 remission, and treatment strategies. Results. The study included 1138 baseline patients at 8 sites, with baseline (SD) age 52 years (16.9); 72% women; 23% erosions; 54% ever smokers; 51% rheumatoid factor-positive; 37% anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive; disease duration 187 (203) days; DAS28 4.5 (1.4). Site had an effect on outcomes when adjusting for confounders. At 6 and 12 months, sites B and H, the 2 largest sites, had the best changes in DAS28 (−1.82 and −2.09, respectively, at 6 mos, and −2.27 for both at 12 mos; p < 0.001). Site H had the most patients in DAS28 remission at 6 months [64.5% compared to other sites that had from 34.1% to 51.7% (p < 0.001)], and at the last followup, sites B and H had the most in remission. Subcutaneous methotrexate was used more overall and earlier at sites B and H. Those sites used less steroid therapy, and site B had the second-highest use of triple disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at any visit. Medications were increased more in 2 of the 3 smallest sites. Biologics were used by 9 months most in the smallest (50.0%) and then largest (19.6%) sites. Conclusion. Sites in an early inflammatory arthritis cohort yielded different outcomes. Better outcomes up to 12 months may result from initial treatment with early combination therapy and/or subcutaneous methotrexate.

Non-biologic remission maintenance therapy in adult patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To determine the comparative efficacy of non-biologic treatments for remission maintenance in ANCA-associated vasculitis. METHODS We identified all randomized trials comparing leflunomide, azathioprine, methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil in adult patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis. Relapse-free survival was compared through hazard ratios (HR) using a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to explore biases identified in one trial using original trial data. RESULTS Three trials were available (leflunomide-methotrexate, methotrexate- azathioprine, azathioprine-mycophenolate). Mycophenolate was inferior to all treatments, although the 95% credible interval (CrI) of the HR relative to methotrexate crossed 1. Leflunomide was superior to azathioprine (HR 0.43 [95% CrI: 0.14-1.3]) and methotrexate (HR 0.47 [95% CrI: 0.18-1.2]), although the 95% CrI also crossed 1. There was a 90% probability that leflunomide was the best treatment. After down weighting the effect of leflunomide vs. methotrexate for early trial termination and slow MTX dose escalation, there remained a 55% probability leflunomide was best. CONCLUSION Based on indirect evidence, leflunomide is effective in maintaining remission in granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis relative to other non-biologic treatments. Further randomized trials of leflunomide are needed for confirmation.