Rheumatoid Arthritis: Jobanputra P

Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris G, Taylor RS. · Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK. · Health Technol Assess. · Pubmed #18405470 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to November 2003. Industry submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2003 were also reviewed. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a model-based economic evaluation were undertaken. Meta-analyses were undertaken for each COX-2 selective NSAID compared with placebo and non-selective NSAIDs. The model was designed to run in two forms: the 'full Assessment Group Model (AGM)', which includes an initial drug switching cycle, and the 'simpler AGM', where there is no initial cycle and no opportunity for the patient to switch NSAID. RESULTS: Compared with non-selective NSAIDs, the COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found to be equally as efficacious as the non-selective NSAIDs (although meloxicam was found to be of inferior or equivalent efficacy) and also to be associated with significantly fewer clinical upper gastrointestinal (UGI) events (although relatively small numbers of clinical gastrointestinal (GI) and myocardial infarction (MI) events were reported across trials). Subgroup analyses of clinical and complicated UGI events and MI events in relation to aspirin use, steroid use, prior GI history and Helicobacter pylori status were based on relatively small numbers and were inconclusive. In the RCTs that included direct COX-2 comparisons, the drugs were equally tolerated and of equal efficacy. Trials were of insufficient size and duration to allow comparison of risk of clinical UGI events, complicated UGI events and MIs. One RCT compared COX-2 (celecoxib) with a non-selective NSAID combined with a gastroprotective agent (diclofenac combined with omeprazole); this included arthritis patients who had recently suffered a GI haemorrhage. Although no significant difference in clinical GI events was reported, the number of events was small and more such studies, where patients genuinely need NSAIDs, are required to confirm these data. A second trial showed that rofecoxib was associated with fewer diarrhoea events than a combination of diclofenac and misoprostol (Arthrotec). Previously published cost-effectiveness analyses indicated a wide of range of possible incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained estimates. Using the simpler AGM, with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone as the comparator, all of the COX-2 products are associated with higher costs (i.e. positive incremental costs) and small increases in effectiveness (i.e. positive incremental effectiveness), measured in terms of QALYs. The magnitude of the incremental costs and the incremental effects, and therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, vary considerably across all COX-2 selective NSAIDs. The base-case incremental cost per QALY results for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared with diclofenac for the simpler model are: celecoxib (low dose) 68,400 pounds; celecoxib (high dose) 151,000 pounds; etodolac (branded) 42,400 pounds; etodolac (generic) 17,700 pounds; etoricoxib 31,300 pounds; lumiracoxib 70,400 pounds; meloxicam (low dose) 10,300 pounds; meloxicam (high dose) 17,800 pounds; rofecoxib 97,400 pounds; and valdecoxib 35,500 pounds. When the simpler AGM was run using ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) as the comparator, the results change substantially, with the COX-2 selective NSAIDs looking generally unattractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view (COX-2 selective NSAIDs were dominated by ibuprofen or diclofenac combined with PPI in most cases). This applies both to 'standard' and 'high-risk' arthritis patients defined in terms of previous GI ulcers. The full AGM produced results broadly in line with the simpler model. CONCLUSIONS: The COX-2 selective NSAIDs examined were found to be similar to non-selective NSAIDs for the symptomatic relief of RA and OA and to provide superior GI tolerability (the majority of evidence is in patients with OA). Although COX-2 selective NSAIDs offer protection against serious GI events, the amount of evidence for this protective effect varied considerably across individual drugs. The volume of trial evidence with regard to cardiovascular safety also varied substantially between COX-2 selective NSAIDs. Increased risk of MI compared to non-selective NSAIDs was observed among those drugs with greater volume of evidence in terms of exposure in patient-years. Economic modelling shows a wide range of possible costs per QALY gained in patients with OA and RA. Costs per QALY also varied if individual drugs were used in 'standard' or 'high'-risk patients, the choice of non-selective NSAID comparator and whether that NSAID was combined with a PPI. With reduced costs of PPIs, future primary research needs to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COX-2 selective NSAIDs relative to non-selective NSAIDs with a PPI. Direct comparisons of different COX-2 selective NSAIDs, using equivalent doses, that compare GI and MI risk are needed. Pragmatic studies that include a wider range of people, including the older age groups with a greater burden of arthritis, are also necessary to inform clinical practice.

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.

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.

Homer D, Nightingale P, Jobanputra P. · Department of Rheumatology, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, UK. · Musculoskeletal Care. · Pubmed #18792423 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Communicating information about disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) before patients start treatment is a key role for some rheumatology clinical nurse specialists. This is done in our unit to promote understanding of the risks and benefits of drug therapy and encourage timely and reliable use of DMARDs. Information is routinely provided individually but this can lead to delays in starting treatment because of limited nursing resources. In this randomized trial we tested the feasibility of giving patients, who were about to start on a DMARD, information about the drug in groups and compared this with information given individually. METHODS: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis who were referred to the nursing team for counselling about starting on methotrexate, sulfasalazine or leflunomide were included. Patients who had previously taken a DMARD were not excluded and those consenting were randomized to receive drug information individually or in groups (of three to six patients). We provided all patients with written materials about the relevant drug and discussed the risks and benefits of drug use verbally. Patients allocated to group counselling received this intervention in a teaching room, with a slide presentation. The primary outcome was adherence with medication use, ascertained by pill counts, self-report diaries and prescription dispensation. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with information about medicines (SIMS) by questionnaire; time taken to provide information; adherence to scheduled hospital appointments and blood monitoring schedules; and DMARD continuation rates at four and twelve months. RESULTS: Of 127 eligible patients referred for counselling about DMARDs, 62 consented to take part: 32 were randomized to receive drug information individually and 30 to receiving it in groups. Patients allocated to the two different interventions were comparable for age and diagnoses at baseline but more patients allocated individual counselling had not taken a DMARD previously: 56% (18/32) versus 20% (6/30). More patients counselled in groups were adherent (27/30; 90%) compared with patients counselled individually (22/32; 69%; p = 0.06) by pill counts. However, on self-report diaries, similar proportions were adherent (group counselling 97% (29/30) versus individual 94% (30/32); p = 1.0). All but two prescriptions were dispensed. More patients allocated to individual counselling missed at least one blood monitoring visit (25% versus 17%; p = 0.54) and at least one scheduled clinic visit (19% versus 3%; p = 0.10). SIMS scores indicated high levels of patient satisfaction and were similar for both groups. The time taken to run group and individual counselling sessions were similar (median of 35 minutes versus 33 minutes, respectively). Nursing time per individual patient in those allocated group counselling was 11.6 minutes. Drug continuation rates were higher for those counselled in groups compared with those counselled individually: at four months, 73% versus 63 %; p = 0.42; at twelve months, 47% versus 38%; p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of providing counselling on DMARDs to groups of patients with important time savings for specialist nurses and while maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction. There was a trend for better outcomes in terms of adherence and drug continuation rates for patients counselled in groups, indicating potential benefits from group interactions. However, these findings need to be investigated further in a larger, fully powered trial.

Justice EA, Khan SY, Logan S, Jobanputra P. · Rheumatology Department, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Raddlebarn Road, Birmingham, B29 6JD, UK. · J Med Case Reports. · Pubmed #18727822 links to  free full text

Abstract: ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: We present the case of a 49-year-old woman with a seronegative rheumatoid arthritis who developed pustular psoriasis whilst on etanercept and subsequently developed disseminated herpes simplex on infliximab. CASE PRESENTATION: Our patient presented with an inflammatory arthritis which failed to respond to both methotrexate and leflunomide, and sulphasalazine treatment led to side effects. She was started on etanercept but after 8 months of treatment developed scaly pustular lesions on her palms and soles typical of pustular psoriasis. Following the discontinuation of etanercept, our patient required high doses of oral prednisolone to control her inflammatory arthritis. A second biologic agent, infliximab, was introduced in addition to low-dose methotrexate and 15 mg of oral prednisolone. However, after just 3 infusions of infliximab, she was admitted to hospital with a fever, widespread itchy vesicular rash and worsening inflammatory arthritis. Fluid from skin vesicles examined by polymerase chain reaction showed Herpes Simplex Virus type 1. Blood cultures were negative and her chest X-ray was normal. Her infliximab was discontinued and she was started on acyclovir, 800 mg five times daily for 2 weeks. She made a good recovery with improvement in her skin within 48 hours.She continued for 2 months on a prophylactic dose of 400 mg bd. Her rheumatoid arthritis became increasingly active and a decision was made to introduce adalimumab alongside acyclovir. Acyclovir prophylaxis has been continued but the dose tapered so that she is taking only 200 mg of acyclovir on alternate days. There has been no recurrence of Herpes Simplex Virus lesions despite increasing adalimumab to 40 mg weekly 3 months after starting treatment. CONCLUSION: We believe this to be the first reported case of widespread cutaneous Herpes Simplex Virus type 1 infection following treatment with infliximab. We discuss the clinical manifestations of Herpes Simplex Virus infections with particular emphasis on the immunosuppressed patient and the use of prophylactic acyclovir. Pustular psoriasis is now a well recognised but uncommon side effect of antitumour necrosis factor therapy and can lead to cessation of therapy, as in our patient's case.

Jobanputra P, Amarasena R, Maggs F, Homer D, Bowman S, Rankin E, Filer A, Raza K, Jubb R. · Department of Rheumatology, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Raddlebarn Road, Birmingham, B29 6JD, UK. · BMC Musculoskelet Disord. · Pubmed #18405372 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting systems for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are handicapped by under-reporting and limited detail on individual cases. We report an investigation from a local surveillance for serious adverse drug reactions associated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs that was triggered by the occurrence of liver failure in two of our patients. METHODS: Serious ADR reports have been solicited from local clinicians by regular postcards over the past seven years. Patients', who had hepatotoxicity on sulfasalazine and met a definition of a serious ADR, were identified. Two clinicians reviewed structured case reports and assessed causality by consensus and by using a causality assessment instrument. The likely frequency of hepatotoxicity with sulfasalazine was estimated by making a series of conservative assumptions. RESULTS: Ten cases were identified: eight occurred during surveillance. Eight patients were hospitalised, two in hepatic failure - one died after a liver transplant. All but one event occurred within 6 weeks of treatment. Seven patients had a skin rash, three eosinophilia and one interstitial nephritis. Five patients were of Black British of African or Caribbean descent. Liver enzymes showed a hepatocellular pattern in four cases and a mixed pattern in six. Drug-related hepatotoxicity was judged probable or highly probable in 8 patients. The likely frequency of serious hepatotoxicity with sulfasalazine was estimated at 0.4% of treated patients. CONCLUSION: Serious hepatotoxicity associated with sulfasalazine appears to be under-appreciated and intensive monitoring and vigilance in the first 6 weeks of treatment is especially important.

Eversden L, Maggs F, Nightingale P, Jobanputra P. · Department of Physiotherapy, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Raddlebarn Road, Birmingham, B29 6JD, UK. <> · BMC Musculoskelet Disord. · Pubmed #17331241 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Hydrotherapy is highly valued by people with rheumatoid arthritis yet few studies have compared the benefits of exercises in heated water against exercises on land. In particular, data on quality of life is rarely reported. This is especially important because patients treated with hydrotherapy often report an enhanced sense of well-being. We report a randomised controlled trial in which we compared the effects of hydrotherapy with exercises on land on overall response to treatment, physical function and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: One hundred and fifteen patients with RA were randomised to receive a weekly 30-minute session of hydrotherapy or similar exercises on land for 6 weeks. Our primary outcome was a self-rated global impression of change--a measure of treatment effect on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(very much worse) to 7 (very much better) assessed immediately on completion of treatment. Secondary outcomes including EuroQol health related quality of life, EuroQol health status valuation, HAQ, 10 metre walk time and pain scores were collected at baseline, after treatment and 3 months later. Binary outcomes were analysed by Fisher's exact test and continuous variables by Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Significantly more patients treated with hydrotherapy (40/46, 87%) were much better or very much better than the patients treated with land exercise (19/40, 47.5%), p < 0.001 Fisher's exact test. Eleven patients allocated land exercise failed to complete treatment compared with 4 patients allocated hydrotherapy (p = 0.09). Sensitivity analyses confirmed an advantage for hydrotherapy if we assumed non-completers would all not have responded (response rates 70% versus 38%; p < 0.001) or if we assumed that non-completers would have had the same response as completers (response rates 82% versus 55% p = 0.002). Ten metre walk time improved after treatment in both cases (median pre-treatment time for both groups combined 10.9 seconds, post-treatment 9.1 s, and 3 months later 9.6 s). There was however no difference between treatment groups. Similarly there were no significant differences between groups in terms of changes to HAQ, EQ-5D utility score, EQ VAS and pain VAS. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA treated with hydrotherapy are more likely to report feeling much better or very much better than those treated with land exercises immediately on completion of the treatment programme. This perceived benefit was not reflected by differences between groups in 10-metre walk times, functional scores, quality of life measures and pain scores.

Street I, Jobanputra P, Proops DW. · Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · J Laryngol Otol. · Pubmed #17040588 No free full text.

Abstract: Patients with autoimmune inner-ear disease (AIED) are treated with high doses of steroids in the short term when suffering an acute hearing loss. As a consequence, substances such as methotrexate have been employed in the role of steroid-sparing agents. Additionally, it is known that tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) is an important mediator of the inflammatory process, inhibition of which may be of benefit in AIED. This case report illustrates the use of a TNFalpha inhibitor in combination with methotrexate, which is known to be an effective combination in rheumatoid arthritis but has yet to be described for sensorineural hearing loss. We conclude that progressive AIED may respond well to TNFalpha inhibition, whilst more difficult cases, such as this example, could benefit from combining such therapy with methotrexate.

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.

Jobanputra P, Maggs F, Homer D, Bevan J. · Department of Rheumatology, Selly Oak Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Selly Oak, Birmingham, United Kingdom. · Drug Saf. · Pubmed #12452734 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Serious adverse events may occur from the use of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. We describe preliminary data from a regional surveillance scheme. Our aims were to identify a broad range of potential adverse events, to identify deficiencies in care and examine the management of common events in order to improve care. METHODS: Adverse events were sought by regular postcards to clinicians in the West Midlands region of the UK. Each reported case was carefully described and the opinions of at least three peer-reviewers were sought on cause-effect relationships, the potential for prevention and the appropriateness of management. RESULTS: Forty-four serious adverse events associated with DMARD use were reported between December 1999 and October 2001. Events included eight patients with malignancies, two with pancytopenia taking methotrexate, three with septic arthritis, and two with septicaemias. Fifteen cases have been peer-reviewed in detail, so far. At least two reviewers thought that eight events were related to DMARD use and that two were preventable. Agreement between pairs of reviewers was fair or moderate (weighted kappa 0.23-0.5). DISCUSSION: We have successfully implemented a regional system for identifying potential drug-related serious adverse events. A diverse range of potential drug-related events has been seen. Early analyses have highlighted the difficulties of determining cause-effect relationships between a drug and an event.

Jobanputra P. · No affiliation provided · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #10725080 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.