Kalle J. Aaltonen

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of existing TNF blocking agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background and Objectives Five-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blockers (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) are available for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Only few clinical trials compare one TNF-blocker to another. Hence, a systematic review is required to indirectly compare the substances. The aim of our study is to estimate the efficacy and the safety of TNF-blockers in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and indirectly compare all five currently available blockers by combining the results from included randomized clinical trials (RCT). Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including: MEDLINE, SCOPUS (including EMBASE), Cochrane library and electronic search alerts. Only articles reporting double-blind RCTs of TNF-blockers vs. placebo, with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), in treatment of RA were selected. Data collected were information of patients, interventions, controls, outcomes, study methods and eventual sources of bias. Results Forty-one articles reporting on 26 RCTs were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Five RCTs studied infliximab, seven etanercept, eight adalimumab, three golimumab and three certolizumab. TNF-blockers were more efficacious than placebo at all time points but were comparable to MTX. TNF-blocker and MTX combination was superior to either MTX or TNF-blocker alone. Increasing doses did not improve the efficacy. TNF-blockers were relatively safe compared to either MTX or placebo. Conclusions No single substance clearly rose above others in efficacy, but the results of the safety analyses suggest that etanercept might be the safest alternative. Interestingly, MTX performs nearly identically considering both efficacy and safety aspects with a margin of costs.

The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Background and Objectives Economic evaluations provide information to aid the optimal utilization of limited healthcare resources. Costs of biologics for Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are remarkably high, which makes these agents an important target for economic evaluations. This systematic review aims to identify existing studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biologics for RA, assess their quality and report their results systematically. Methods A literature search covering Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library, ACP Journal club and Web of Science was performed in March 2013. The cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of one or more available biological drugs for the treatment of RA in adults were included. Two independent investigators systematically collected information and assessed the quality of the studies. To enable the comparison of the results, all costs were converted to 2013 euro. Results Of the 4890 references found in the literature search, 41 CUAs were included in the current systematic review. While considering only direct costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) ranged from 39,000 to 1 273,000 €/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained in comparison to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in cDMARD naïve patients. Among patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs, biologics were associated with ICERs ranging from 12,000 to 708,000 €/QALY. Rituximab was found to be the most cost-effective alternative compared to other biologics among the patients with an insufficient response to TNFi. Conclusions When 35,000 €/QALY is considered as a threshold for the ICER, TNFis do not seem to be cost-effective among cDMARD naïve patients and patients with an insufficient response to cDMARDs. With thresholds of 50,000 to 100,000 €/QALY biologics might be cost-effective among patients with an inadequate response to cDMARDs. Standardization of multiattribute utility instruments and a validated standard conversion method for missing utility measures would enable better comparison between CUAs.

Rates of Serious Infections and Malignancies Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Either Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor or Rituximab Therapy

Objective. Because of the role of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in host defense, it was hypothesized that its inhibition might lead to an increased risk of malignancies and infections. The objective of our study was to assess the incidence of serious infections leading to hospitalization and malignancies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving either TNF inhibitor or rituximab (RTX) therapy. Methods. The study population was identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland and the hospital records of Central Finland Central Hospital for conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) users. Data on infections and malignancies were acquired from national healthcare registers. A Poisson model was used to calculate the adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and was composed of age, sex, time from diagnosis, year of the beginning of the followup, rheumatoid factor status, Disease Activity Score at 28 joints, Health Assessment Questionnaire, prior malignancy, prior serious infection, prior biologic use, and time-updated use of methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and oral corticosteroids as confounders. Results. In total, during the followup of 10,994 patient-years, 92 malignancies and 341 serious infections were included in the analyses. The aIRR of infections compared to cDMARD users were 1.2 (95% CI 0.63–2.3), 0.84 (95% CI 0.53–1.3), 0.98 (95% CI 0.60–1.6), and 1.1 (95% CI 0.59–1.9) for the patients treated with infliximab (IFX), etanercept, adalimumab, and RTX, respectively. The crude rates of malignancies were highest among the users of cDMARD and RTX, and lowest among patients treated with IFX with no differences in aIRR. Conclusion. Our results provide some reassurance of the safety of biologic treatments in the treatment of RA.

Do biologic drugs affect the need for and outcome of joint replacements in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? A register-based study

OBJECTIVES The aim was to study the incidence of joint replacements among biologic drug and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) users as well as to investigate the plausible effect of biologic treatment on survival of prostheses in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS The study population comprised 2 cohorts of patients [Register of biologic treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) and the Central Finland RA database] from 1999 to 2010. Records of joint replacements performed in the study population between 1980 and 2010 were retrieved from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Propensity score matching was used to equalize patient characteristics between biologics and DMARD users. The incidence rates of primary and revision operations were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyze prosthesis survival. RESULTS Of the 2102 biologics and 2710 DMARD users identified from the registries, 1587 were included in both groups after the matching. Median follow-up times were 3.1 and 8.0 years, respectively. There were more primary operations per 100 patient years in the biologics (3.89, CI 95% 3.41-4.41) vs. DMARD (2.63, 2.35-2.94) group but slightly fewer revisions (0.65, 0.46-0.88 vs. 0.83, 0.68-1.01). Biologics users were more likely to receive a joint replacement to small joints (p < 0.001). The survival of the prostheses installed during or prior to follow-up was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS The use of biologic drugs did not reduce the need for joint replacement surgery in patients with a similar on-medication disease activity. Despite possibly lower rate of revisions among biologic users, the durability of prostheses was not improved.

Effectiveness and Drug Survival of TNF Inhibitors in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective. The aim of this research was to describe the effectiveness and drug survival of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and to analyze the effect of concomitant treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Methods. Patients with AS identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland starting their first TNF inhibitor treatment between July 2004 and December 2011 were included. Treatment response was measured as an improvement of 50% (or 20 mm) after 6 months of treatment onset compared to the baseline Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score. Treatment response and 2-year drug survival were modeled with logistic regression and time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models, respectively. Results. The study comprised 543 patients, of whom 123 also commenced a second TNF inhibitor during the followup. Treatment was discontinued within 24 months by 25% and 28% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. BASDAI response at 6 months was achieved by 52% and 25% of the users of the first and the second TNF inhibitors, respectively. Etanercept (ETN; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29–0.62) and adalimumab (ADA; HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30–0.77) were associated with better drug survival in comparison to infliximab (IFX). Also, concurrent use of sulfasalazine (SSZ; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49–0.99) decreased the hazard for treatment discontinuation. Conclusion. TNF inhibitors are equipotent in the treatment of AS; however, ETN and ADA were found superior to IFX in drug survival. The use of SSZ improves treatment continuation.

The EULAR Study Group for Registers and Observational Drug Studies: comparability of the patient case mix in the European biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug registers

OBJECTIVE Under the auspices of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), a study group of investigators representing European biologic DMARD (bDMARD) registers was convened. The purpose of this initial assessment was to collect and compare a cross section of patient characteristics and collate information on the availability of potential confounders within these registers. METHODS Baseline characteristics of patients starting their first bDMARD in an arbitrary year (2008) for the treatment of RA, including demographic and disease characteristics, bDMARD drug details and co-morbidities, were collected and compared across 14 European bDMARD registers. RESULTS A total of 5320 patients were included. Half the registers had restricted recruitment to certain bDMARDs during the study year. All registers` collected data on age, gender, disease duration, seropositivity for IgM-RF and 28-joint DAS (DAS28). The mean DAS28 ranged from 4.2 to 6.6 and the mean HAQ from 0.8 to 1.9. Current smoking ranged from 9% to 34%. Nine registers reported co-morbidities with varying prevalence. CONCLUSION In addition to demonstrating European-wide collaboration across rheumatology bDMARD registers, this assessment identified differences in prescribing patterns, recruitment strategies and data items collected. These differences need to be considered when applying strategies for combined analysis. The lack of a common data model across Europe calls for further work to harmonize data collection across registers.

Effectiveness and drug survival of TNF-inhibitors in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors are used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but only a limited number of observational studies on this subject have been published thus far. The aim of this research was to analyze the effectiveness and drug survival of TNF-inhibitors in the treatment of PsA. METHODS PsA patients identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) starting their first, second, or third TNF-inhibitor treatment between 2004 and 2014 were included. Effectiveness was measured using ACR and EULAR response criteria and modeled using ordinal logistic regression. Treatment persistence was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS The study comprised 765 patients and 990 TNF-inhibitor treatment courses. EULAR moderate treatment responses at 6 months were achieved by 68% and 37% of the users of the first and the second or the third biologic, respectively. The probabilities of discontinuing the treatment within 12 and 24 months were 20% and 28%, respectively. Adjusted treatment responses to all TNF-inhibitors were similar; however, co-therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) was not associated with better effectiveness. Adalimumab [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.88] was superior to infliximab in drug survival while etanercept (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.1) and golimumab (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.2) did not differ from it. Co-medication with csDMARDs did not statistically improve drug survival. CONCLUSION All available TNF-inhibitors showed similar treatment responses with or without csDMARDs. Adalimumab was associated with better drug survival when compared to infliximab.

Drug survival on tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Finland.

Objective: A systematic review found that an average of 27% of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors discontinue their treatment within 1 year. The aim of this study was to assess drug survival on TNF inhibitors among patients with RA. Methods: Patients were identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN), which is a longitudinal cohort study established to monitor the effectiveness and safety of biologic drugs in rheumatic diseases. Inclusion was limited to TNF-inhibitor treatments started as the patient’s first, second, or third biologic treatment between 2004 and 2014. Follow-up was truncated at 36 months. The results of a time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model were reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of the 4200 TNF-inhibitor treatment periods identified from ROB-FIN, 3443 periods from 2687 patients met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven per cent of the patients discontinued their treatment within 12 months. Infliximab (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3–2.5) and certolizumab pegol (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.3) had lower drug survival compared to golimumab. A similar trend was seen with adalimumab (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.90–1.7) and etanercept (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.87–1.6). Concomitant use of methotrexate (MTX) was associated with improved drug survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.90) in comparison with TNF-inhibitor monotherapy. Conclusions: Golimumab was better in terms of drug survival than infliximab or certolizumab pegol and at least as good as adalimumab and etanercept. Concomitant use of MTX improved drug survival on TNF inhibitors.

A nationwide cross-sectional overview of patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed in outpatient specialty clinics in Finland

Objectives: We aimed to conduct a cross-sectional overview of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in outpatient specialized clinics in Finland. Method: Consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. The data collected comprised demographic, disease- and treatment-related variables. Results: Between November 2011 and May 2012, 890 patients with RA (77% female) were enrolled from 14 sites. The median age was 59.8 years and the time from diagnosis 7.2 years. Values for the Disease Activity Score using 28 joint counts (DAS28) ranged from 0.28 to 6.61 (median 2.55) with 52% and 70% of patients reaching remission and low disease activity, respectively. Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies were evident in 70% and 63% of patients, respectively. Median Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores with and without aids and devices were 0.75 [interquartile range (IQR) 0.13–1.38] and 0.63 (IQR 0.13–1.13), respectively. Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were used by 91% of patients. A triple therapy of methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and sulfasalazine (SSZ) was used by 15%, other MTX-based combination by 30%, MTX alone by 20%, and other DMARDs alone or in combination by 26% of patients. In addition, glucocorticoids and biologics were taken by 58% and 21% of patients, respectively. Of the 184 biologics users, 18% were not using DMARDs concomitantly. Conclusions: Our cross-sectional review of patients with RA revealed that > 50% of patients were in remission according to DAS28. Comparison with previous studies revealed a reduction in disease activity of prevalent RA cases, possibly resulting from increased use of aggressive anti-rheumatic treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of biologic compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Register study

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) for RA using real-world data from Finnish registers. METHODS RA patients starting their first bDMARD and comparator patients using csDMARDs during 2007-11 were obtained from the National register of biologic treatments in Finland and the Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences between bDMARD and csDMARD users. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and based on the register of biologic treatments in Finland and Jyväskylä Central Hospital patient records, whereas the direct costs were obtained from relevant Finnish national registers. Patients were followed up for 2 years, and both costs and effectiveness for the second year were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with 95% CI was calculated based on bootstrapped mean costs and effectiveness. RESULTS Of 1581 RA patients meeting study inclusion criteria, 552 bDMARD and 220 csDMARD users were included in analyses after matching. Mean costs for bDMARDs and csDMARDs were €55 371 and €24 879, while mean effectiveness was 1.23 and 1.20 QALYs, respectively. Consequent ICER was €902 210/QALY. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION The high incremental cost and the small, non-significant difference in effectiveness resulted in high ICER, suggesting that bDMARDs are not cost-effective. Regardless of matching, latent confounders may introduce bias to the results.