Rheumatoid Arthritis: Coyle D

McKendry RJ, Coyle D. · No affiliation provided · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11327235 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

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.

Gabriel S, Drummond M, Maetzel A, Boers M, Coyle D, Welch V, Tugwell P, Anonymous00150. · Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12672223 No free full text.

Abstract: Standardization of methods for economic evaluation is essential for defining the methodological research agenda that will advance the discipline. Standardization also greatly facilitates the interpretation and comparison of the results of economic analyses. For these reasons, several jurisdictions now require economic evaluation, conducted according to standardized methodological guidelines, as a key ingredient in decision making for reimbursement of health treatments and technologies. The application of these general guidelines, however, can be difficult in the absence of disease-specific information. In the case of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the recent emergence of innovative, highly effective, but also expensive treatments has created an immediate need to more fully understand the economic implications of RA treatments. With this background, the OMERACT Economics Working Group set out in 1994 to develop an RA-specific reference case for economic evaluation. This report summarizes the OMERACT process leading to specific recommendations on the 12 key elements of a proposed "reference case" for economic evaluation in RA. These elements include: study horizon, duration of therapy, extrapolation beyond trial duration, modeling beyond therapy, synthesis of comparisons where head-to-head trials do not exist, clinical outcome measures, mortality, valuation of health states, resource utilization, discontinuation of therapy, therapeutic sequence, and population risk stratification. Through these efforts, the OMERACT Economics Working Group aims to expedite and enhance the conduct and dissemination of methodological research in economic analyses in the rheumatic diseases.

Blumenauer B, Coyle D, Tugwell P. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. · Expert Opin Pharmacother. · Pubmed #11934345 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis affects ~ 1% of the population. It is associated with pain, deformity, decreased quality of life and disability that in turn affects patients' ability to work. A variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are available to control the disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis. The goal of treatment is to improve patients' quality of life and prevent joint destruction. This paper reviews both the clinical aspects of frequently prescribed disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the available cost-effectiveness information. Clinical evidence supports the effectiveness of methotrexate, etanercept, infliximab, gold, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, penicillamine, cyclosporin, azathioprine and corticosteroids. The last four of these are associated with greater toxicity and are only used if less toxic drugs are ineffective. The lack of published economic evaluations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs highlights the need for such studies to allow efficacious and cost-effective drugs to be used to prevent the long-term complications of uncontrolled rheumatoid arthritis.

Gabriel SE, Coyle D, Moreland LW. · Health Sciences Research, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. · Pharmacoeconomics. · Pubmed #11548909 No free full text.

Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis is one of the most common chronic systemic inflammatory diseases, affecting approximately 1% of the adult population. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been the mainstay of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis when combined with physical therapy and aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Recently, a number of new biological therapies have been introduced for the treatment of this condition and will have a major impact on the future management of this disabling disease. In this review, we summarise data on the efficacy and tolerability of the currently available DMARDs, including gold compounds, antimalarials, penicillamine, cytotoxic drugs (azathioprine and cyclophosphamide), sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, cyclosporin, anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, combination therapy and apheresis. A literature review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of DMARDs is presented, illustrating that there has been a paucity of economic evaluations on these agents and showing the variable quality of those studies that are available. The manuscript also addresses the pharmacoeconomic implications of the new agents for rheumatoid arthritis; the need for formal long term economic evaluations in order to determine the cost effectiveness of these costly, but highly effective, new treatments is emphasised.

Maetzel A, Tugwell P, Boers M, Guillemin F, Coyle D, Drummond M, Wong JB, Gabriel SE, Anonymous00151. · Division of Clinical Decision Making and Health Care Research, Toronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #12672224 No free full text.

Abstract: Improvement in the quality of economic evaluation could be documented as a consequence of international and national standardization efforts. One such effort is the recommendation that all economic evaluations in a given field produce findings in a standard format using a reference case. A reference case-based economic evaluation would adhere to specific settings with regard to outcomes, comparators, modeling techniques, and use of costs to facilitate comparisons among economic evaluations performed with the same objective. In the past, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) consensus conference has successfully developed widely used, consensus-based outcome criteria for clinical improvement in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Present efforts are being directed at the development of recommendations for the type and format of a reference case economic evaluation for newly developed disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). This document discusses 13 important elements that experts considered to be relevant for the development of a reference case recommendation for economic evaluations in RA. We provide the rationale for each element and discuss how each element has been addressed in published economic evaluations of DMARD.

Coyle D, Welch V, Shea B, Gabriel S, Drummond M, Tugwell P. · Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Loeb Health Research Institute, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #11296975 No free full text.

Abstract: We report initial attempts at developing standards for the conduct of economic evaluations in rheumatology. We surveyed 25 clinicians and economists with an interest in rheumatology regarding the design and reporting of economic evaluations, with particular reference to 4 clinical scenarios relating to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. The results demonstrated widespread agreement on a number of methodological issues such as statement of funding source, perspective, discounting, and allowance for uncertainty. However, there was lack of consensus over clinical variables including sources of data for efficacy estimates, specific clinical outcomes, methods of assessing quality of life, and choice of comparators. Some of the disagreement reflects lack of consensus in current general methodological guidelines. Consensus regarding the disease-specific clinical variables is crucial to standardizing analysis and facilitating comparisons within clinical scenarios.