Rheumatoid Arthritis: Burls A

Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, Fry-Smith A, Burls A. · West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration (WMHTAC), Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #17049139 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This report reviews the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, agents that inhibit tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), when used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to February 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of the literature on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were undertaken and industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were reviewed. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were also undertaken for each agent. The Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM), a simulation model, was further developed and used to produce an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most of high quality, were included. The only head-to-head comparisons were against methotrexate. For patients with short disease duration (<or=3 years) who were naïve to methotrexate, adalimumab was marginally less and etanercept was marginally more effective than methotrexate in reducing symptoms of RA. Etanercept was better tolerated than methotrexate. Both adalimumab and etanercept were more effective than methotrexate in slowing radiographic joint damage. Etanercept was also marginally more effective and better tolerated than methotrexate in patients with longer disease durations who had not failed methotrexate treatment. Infliximab is only licensed for use with methotrexate. All three agents, either alone (where so licensed) or in combination with ongoing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), were effective in reducing the symptoms and signs of RA in patients with established disease. At the licensed dose, the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) (95% CI) required to produce an American College for Rheumatology (ACR) response compared with placebo were: ACR20: adalimumab 3.6 (3.1 to 4.2), etanercept 2.1 (1.9 to 2.4), infliximab 3.2 (2.7 to 4.0); ACR50: adalimumab 4.2 (3.7 to 5.0), etanercept 3.1 (2.7 to 3.6), infliximab 5.0 (3.8 to 6.7); and ACR70: adalimumab 7.7 (5.9 to 11.1), etanercept 7.7 (6.3 to 10.0), infliximab 11.1 (7.7 to 20.0). In patients who were naïve to methotrexate, or who had not previously failed methotrexate treatment, a TNF inhibitor combined with methotrexate was significantly more effective than methotrexate alone. Infliximab combined with methotrexate had an increased risk of serious infections. All ten published economic evaluations met standard criteria for quality, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from being within established thresholds to being very high because of varying assumptions and parameters. All three sponsors who submitted economic models made assumptions favourable to their product. BRAM incorporates improvements in quality of life and mortality, but assumes no effect of TNF inhibitors on joint replacement. For use in accordance with current NICE guidance as the third DMARD in a sequence of DMARDs, the base-case ICER was around pound30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in early RA and pound50,000 per QALY in late RA. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to the estimates of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on TNF inhibitors and the effectiveness of DMARDs, but not to changes in mortality ratios per unit HAQ. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used last. The ICER for etanercept used last is pound24,000 per QALY, substantially lower than for adalimumab ( pound30,000 per QALY) or infliximab ( pound38,000 per QALY). First line use as monotherapy generates ICERs around pound50,000 per QALY for adalimumab and etanercept. Using the combination of methotrexate and a TNF inhibitor as first line treatment generates much higher ICERs, as it precludes subsequent use of methotrexate, which is cheap. The ICERs for sequential use are of the same order as using the TNF inhibitor alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab are effective treatments compared with placebo for RA patients who are not well controlled by conventional DMARDs, improving control of symptoms, improving physical function, and slowing radiographic changes in joints. The combination of a TNF inhibitor with methotrexate was more effective than methotrexate alone in early RA, although the clinical relevance of this additional benefit is yet to be established, particularly in view of the well-established effectiveness of MTX alone. An increased risk of serious infection cannot be ruled out for the combination of methotrexate with adalimumab or infliximab. The results of the economic evaluation based on BRAM are consistent with the observations from the review of clinical effectiveness, including the ranking of treatments. TNF inhibitors are most cost-effective when used as last active therapy. In this analysis, other things being equal, etanercept may be the TNF inhibitor of choice, although this may also depend on patient preference as to route of administration. The next most cost-effective use of TNF inhibitors is third line, as recommended in the 2002 NICE guidance. Direct comparative RCTs of TNF inhibitors against each other and against other DMARDs, and sequential use in patients who have failed a previous TNF inhibitor, are needed. Longer term studies of the quality of life in patients with RA and the impact of DMARDs on this are needed, as are longer studies that directly assess effects on joint replacement, other morbidity and mortality.

Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Burls A. · Medicines Evaluation Unit, Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #15130461 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra, an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra), for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases. Scrip, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions for new drug applications, European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) reports and the pharmaceutical company submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were identified that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or economic evaluations of anakinra in adult patients with RA. Existing health economic reviews were also assessed. Data were extracted and quality assessed using a structured approach. The Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM) was used to compare disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) sequences, chosen to reflect current clinical practice, with and without anakinra, at different points in the DMARD sequence. RESULTS: Five high-quality RCTs of anakinra in adult patients with RA, involving a total of 2905 patients, of whom 2146 received anakinra, were identified. The results of the clinical trials were consistent with clinical benefit (compared with placebo) as measured by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) composite response rate at 6 months. Variation in response rate was seen across the trials, which is likely to be a reflection of the size of the trials and the wide range of doses evaluated. Consistent benefit was seen at the higher dose evaluated. Benefit was evident both with monotherapy and when used in combination with methotrexate. Data on the efficacy end-points evaluated in a large pragmatic safety study have not been made available, which is of concern. Anakinra treatment was associated with a high incidence of injection-site reactions. Serious adverse events were infrequent, but longer term follow-up is required. No fully published economic evaluations of anakinra in patients with RA were identified. The BRAM gives a base-case estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anakinra of 106,000 pounds to 604,000 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the sensitivity analyses substantial variations were made in key parameters and ICERs were shown to be responsive. However, ICERs did not drop below 50,000 pounds/QALY in any univariate sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra can be considered modestly effective in the treatment of RA based on ACR response, although no conclusion can currently be made on the effect of treatment on disease progression. Adjusted indirect comparison suggests that anakinra may be significantly less effective at relieving the clinical signs and symptoms of RA, as measured by the ACR response criteria, than tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors all used in combination with methotrexate, although these results should be interpreted with caution. The BRAM produces an ICER for anakinra substantially higher than those for infliximab and etanercept. However, patients may respond to anakinra when they have not responded to other TNF inhibitors, as these agents have a different mechanism of action. Thus, anakinra may produce a clinically significant and important improvement in some patients that they could not otherwise have achieved. Further research would be valuable in the following areas: RCTs to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost of anakinra over the longer term; comparative trials of anakinra with other DMARDs and biological modifiers; assessment of the role of anakinra in the treatment of patients who have failed to achieve a benefit while taking infliximab or etanercept; assessment on the impact of DMARDs and anakinra on joint replacement, mortality and quality of life; controlled clinical trials of combination therapy with two anticytokines; investigations into newer biological therapies; and the utility of radiographic outcomes in clinical trials of RA.

Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A. · Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #14982655 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To address the structural issues relating to mortality and quality of life (QoL) effects and to identify data on the general pattern of QoL of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients through a restructured and enhanced version of the Birmingham Preliminary Model (BPM). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and a postal survey of current UK rheumatological practice. REVIEW METHODS: The focus for this report was to evaluate two new drugs, etanercept and infliximab [antibodies against tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNFs)], for use in the treatment of RA using the Birmingham Rheumatoid Arthritis Model (BRAM). Having carried out a rapid systematic review of physician surveys of current disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) usage patterns in adult patients with RA and a postal survey of consultant rheumatologists working in the UK, the drug sequences were then identified for the model. A series of analyses were then run using the model. The issue of specifying the correct comparison in the analysis being undertaken was investigated using two separate analyses: the situation of comparing anti-TNFs with placebo, and the comparison of a sequence using anti-TNFs with a sequence that represents current practice in the UK. RESULTS: Results from the survey of rheumatologists highlighted the fact that RA has different manifestations and responds to different agents in different patients, all of which makes any summary of practice difficult to achieve and open to the criticism of being an oversimplification. However, the findings generally agree with other surveys and trends observed, such as the increasing acceptance of methotrexate as first line drug of choice in patients with RA, especially if the disease is of an aggressive nature. The newer anti-TNF agents have also begun to be incorporated into use. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios resulting from the use of an inappropriate comparator of placebo were consistently lower than in the base case where appropriate comparator drugs sequences are used. The focus of the BRAM on a drug sequence helped to avoid the incremental cost-effectiveness of new treatments appearing lower than they really are when inappropriate comparators are used. To test the effect on the analysis results of using the disease-modifying antirheumatic sequence that represents current UK practice, the BRAM was run for the strategies representing current UK practice. The results were not very different from the base-case results. CONCLUSIONS: The main achievement of this work was to bring about a more realistic modelling of real-life clinical pathways and events, as it has developed from the BPM to the BRAM. This has been brought about by overcoming structural and data limitations. In addition, the modelling approach reflected in the BRAM is applicable to other chronic conditions, especially those where a sequential approach to therapeutic options exists. The model has been successfully restructured so that different sequences of treatment can readily be considered, including the sequence that best represents current clinical practice in the UK. In addition, the flexibility inherent in using a modelling approach to consider these health policy questions has been demonstrated. One of the key uncertainties that can now be explored concerns the impact of new drugs on disease progression. Current evidence on this is weak, but should new agents demonstrate such a benefit then the BRAM may be a suitable vehicle through which to investigate the costs and full effects. Inevitably, there remain problems and limitations with the BRAM, but these are almost entirely data limitations. As data on these issues become available the BRAM provides a convenient tool through which reanalysis might be undertaken.

Blumenauer B, Judd M, Cranney A, Burls A, Coyle D, Hochberg M, Tugwell P, Wells G. · No affiliation provided · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #14584021 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Etanercept is a soluble tumour necrosis factor alpha-receptor DMARD for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of etanercept for the treatment of RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: Five electronic databases were searched from 1966 to February 2003 with no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (minimum 6 month duration) comparing three possible combinations 1) etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg twice weekly) with methotrexate (MTX) to MTX alone 2) etanercept to MTX, or 3) etanercept to placebo were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the trails. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of disease activity measures for RA clinical trials, radiographic, withdrawals and toxicity outcomes were analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included in this review. Two trials compared an experimental group who were started on etanercept compared to a control group; both groups had the same ongoing background therapy of nonsteroidals in both trials plus in one trial one group was on stable methotrexate.In these two trials the ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response rates at 6 months were statistically significantly and clinically important with etanercept 25 mg subcutaneous injections (SC) twice weekly. Sixty-four percent of people receiving etanercept ache vied an ACR 20 response compared to 15% of controls and the number needed to treat (NNT) with etanercept is 2 people. Thirty-nine percent of those receiving etanercept achieved an ACR 50 response compared to 4% of taking control treatment and the NNT is three.Fifteen percent of people taking etanercept achieved an ACR 70 compared to 1% of controls with a NNT of 7 people.In the third trial of starting etanercept compared to starting methotrexate the number of participants who achieved an ACR 20, 50 or response at 6 and 12 months were not statistically significant for either etanercept dose.Etanercept treatment showed a statistically significantly and clinically important affect on joint damage as measured by the Sharp erosion score. Among participants who received etanercept 72% had no increase in their erosion score compared to 60% of participants in the methotrexate group. Withdrawal and toxicity results were acceptable. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept 25 mg SC twice weekly was more efficacious than control treatment for ACR 20, 50 and 70 at 6 months, and over 12 months it slowed joint damage.

Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A. · Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #12387732 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Cummins C, Connock M, Fry-Smith A, Burls A. · West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Group, Institute of Child Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #12234456 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Blumenauer B, Judd M, Wells G, Burls A, Cranney A, Hochberg M, Tugwell P. · Department of Rheumatology, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa. · Cochrane Database Syst Rev. · Pubmed #12137712 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a human murine chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody recently approved for the treatment of refractory RA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases including Biological Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR and MEDLINE were searched from 1966 to March 2002. Rheumatoid arthritis was searched as an exploded MESH heading. Infliximab was searched as a text word as it is not currently indexed. The search was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication. The specific search strategy is shown below. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing infliximab 1, 3, 5 or 10 mg/kg with methotrexate(MTX) to MTX alone, or without MTX to placebo, with a minimum duration of 6 months and at least 2 infusions were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted by 2 independent reviewers and the methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated assessment tool scale. Outcome variables included the ACR core set of disease activity measures for RA clinical trials and radiographic outcome data. Withdrawals and toxicity were also included. End of trial results were pooled. Continuous data were pooled using weighted mean differences and dichotomous data using relative risks. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with a total of 529 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients fulfilling the American Rheumatism Association 1987 RA diagnostic criteria were randomized to receive either infliximab 1mg/kg (with and without MTX), 3mg/kg(with and without MTX), 10mg/kg of infliximab (with and without MTX) or placebo infusion plus MTX. Infusions were given every 4 or 8 weeks. After 6 months ACR 20, ACR 50 and ACR 70 response rates were significantly improved in all infliximab doses compared to control. The number needed to treat with infliximab to achieve an ACR 20, 50 or 70 response in patients with refractory RA under specialist care ranged from 2.9 to 3.3 for ACR 20, 3.6 to 4.8 for ACR 50 and 5.9 to 12.5 for ACR 70 depending on the dose (3mg/kg or 10mg/kg given either every 4 or 8 weeks). Total withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were lower for all doses of infliximab versus controls. Withdrawals for adverse events and withdrawals for other reasons were not statistically significantly different for those receiving infliximab from control. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with infliximab for 6 and 12 months significantly reduces RA disease activity and appeared to have an acceptable safety profile in these trials. Total radiographic scores improved, fewer patients showed radiographic progression, and more patients showed radiographic improvement with infliximab treatment at 12 months compared to controls. However, only 2 trials met the inclusion criteria, and these results are largely driven by the largest trial. The available efficacy and toxicity data is relatively short-term (6-12 months). In order to detect rare events that may be associated with infliximab, larger and longer term studies are required.

Burls A, Jobanputra P. · West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. · Lancet. · Pubmed #15351176 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Douglas K, Burls A. · Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #12923291 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the current disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) preferences of UK consultant rheumatologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent in May 2002. We asked which DMARD(s) was most frequently preferred first and sought the most typical sequence of DMARDs, including DMARD combinations. Also we determined the extent to which prognostic and other factors influenced treatment choices. Comments were invited, written responses abstracted and key themes identified. RESULTS: After two mailings, 331 (of 460; 72%) suitable questionnaires were returned. Ninety-five per cent (315/331) preferred methotrexate (154, 46.5%) or sulphasalazine (144, 43.5%) or either of these two (17, 5%) as first-choice agent. Of those who chose methotrexate first, 80% (123/154) ranked sulphasalazine second, 45% (55/123) combined sulphasalazine and methotrexate and 49% (27/55) then added hydroxychloroquine to this combination, in active disease. Of those who chose sulphasalazine first, 95% (137/144) ranked methotrexate second, 75% (113/150) preferring methotrexate monotherapy and 12% (18/150) the combination with sulphasalazine. Rheumatologists who preferred sulphasalazine first more commonly used subsequent DMARDs singly than those who started with methotrexate (P < 0.0001). Leflunomide was more commonly preferred than intramuscular gold as third choice (52/145 vs 29/145; P < 0.003). The most popular sequence of DMARDs was methotrexate or sulphasalazine, singly or in combination, leflunomide, intramuscular gold and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Poor prognostic factors influenced DMARD choice, but patient occupation and drug costs did not. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate has displaced other DMARDs, especially sulphasalazine, as agent of first choice and newer agents have displaced older DMARDs. Whether the expressed preference for particular DMARDs accurately reflects actual use, and is optimal in rheumatoid arthritis, remains to be determined.