We should not forget the foot: relations between signs and symptoms, damage, and function in rheumatoid arthritis

We studied rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with foot complaints to address the associations between clinical signs and symptoms, radiographic changes, and function in connection with disease duration. Secondly, we describe the contribution of several foot segments to the clinical presentation and function. In 30 RA patients with complaints of their feet, attributed to either signs of arthritis and/or radiographic damage, we compared radiographic, ultrasound, clinical, and functional parameters of the feet and ankle. Pain and swelling of the ankle were correlated weakly but statistically significantly with limitation and disability (0.273 to 0.293) as measured on the 5-Foot Function Index (FFI). The clinical signs of the forefoot joints did not influence any of the functional outcome measures. Radiographic scores for both forefeet (SvdH) and hindfeet (Larsen) were correlated with the total Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ DI) and the 5-FFI limitation subscale. Pain and disease duration, more than radiographic damage, influence the total HAQ DI significantly. With the progression of time, structural damage and function of the rheumatic foot worsen in RA patients. Pain and swelling of the ankle contribute more to disability than radiographic damage of the foot and ankle

Use of risk stratification to target therapies in patients with recent onset arthritis; design of a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial

Background. Early and intensive treatment is important to inducing remission and preventing joint damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. While intensive combination therapy (Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs and/or biologicals) is the most effective, rheumatologists in daily clinical practice prefer to start with monotherapy methotrexate and bridging corticosteroids. Intensive treatment should be started as soon as the first symptoms manifest, but at this early stage, ACR criteria may not be fulfilled, and there is a danger of over-treatment. We will therefore determine which induction therapy is most effective in the very early stage of persistent arthritis. To overcome over-treatment and under-treatment, the intensity of induction therapy will be based on a prediction model that predicts patients' propensity for persistent arthritis. Methods. A multicenter stratified randomized single-blind controlled trial is currently being performed in patients 18 years or older with recent-onset arthritis. Eight hundred ten patients are being stratified according to the likelihood of their developing persistent arthritis. In patients with a high probability of persistent arthritis, we will study combination Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug therapy compared to monotherapy methotrexate. In patients with an intermediate probability of persistent arthritis, we will study Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug of various intensities. In patients with a low probability, we will study non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, hydroxychloroquine and a single dose of corticosteroids. If disease activity is not sufficiently reduced, treatment will be adjusted according to a step-up protocol. If remission is achieved for at least six months, medication will be tapered off. Patients will be followed up every three months over two years. Discussion. This is the first rheumatological study to base treatment in early arthritis on a prediction rule. Treatment will be stratified according to the probability of persistent arthritis, and different combinations of treatment per stratum will be evaluated. Treatment will be started early, and patients will not need to meet the ACR-criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Trial registration. This trial has been registered in Current Controlled Trials with the ISRCTN26791028

Baricitinib for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of baricitinib (BARI; Olumiant®; a Janus kinase inhibitor that is taken orally) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company’s submission (CS) to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the CS for BARI was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of BARI against adalimumab or placebo, as well as one long-term extension study. The clinical-effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of BARI against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: one in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARD-IR), and the other in patients who had experienced an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). The company’s NMAs concluded BARI had comparable efficacy as the majority of its comparators in both populations. The company submitted a de novo discrete event simulation model that analysed the incremental cost-effectiveness of BARI versus its comparators for the treatment of RA from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in four different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA, defined as a 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) > 3.2 and no more than 5.1; (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA (defined as a DAS28 > 5.1); (3) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) was eligible; and (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated. In the cDMARD-IR population with moderate RA, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for BARI in combination with MTX compared with intensive cDMARDs was estimated to be £37,420 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the cDMARD-IR population with severe RA, BARI in combination with MTX dominated all comparators except for certolizumab pegol (CTZ) in combination with MTX, with the ICER of CTZ in combination with MTX compared with BARI in combination with MTX estimated to be £18,400 per QALY gained. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA, when RTX in combination with MTX was an option, BARI in combination with MTX was dominated by RTX in combination with MTX. In the TNFi-IR population with severe RA for whom RTX in combination with MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated, BARI in combination with MTX dominated golimumab in combination with MTX and was less effective and less expensive than the remaining comparators. Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying corrections to the methods used in the NMAs and two programming errors in the economic model that affected the company’s probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results. The ERG’s NMA results were broadly comparable with the company’s results. The programming error that affected the PSA of the severe cDMARD-IR population had only a minimal impact on the results, while the error affecting the severe TNFi-IR RTX-ineligible population resulted in markedly higher costs and QALYs gained for the affected comparators but did not substantially modify the conclusions of the analysis. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that BARI in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in patients with severe RA, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX-eligible

Tofacitinib for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Pfizer) of tofacitinib (TOF; Xeljanz®) to submit evidence of the drug's clinical and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for TOF is based predominantly on four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of TOF against placebo. Three RCTs investigated TOF in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and one RCT investigated TOF monotherapy. All four RCTs compared TOF with placebo plus cDMARDs, one RCT also included adalimumab as a comparator. The study population in the four RCTs comprised patients who were MTX inadequate responders or cDMARD inadequate responders (cDMARD-IR). The company performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of TOF compared with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in patients who were cDMARD-IR or bDMARD-IR with moderate-to-severe RA for European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at 6 months. The company's NMA concluded that TOF had comparable efficacy to bDMARDs currently recommended by NICE. The company submitted a de novo model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of TOF versus its comparators in six different populations: (1) cDMARD-IR with severe RA; (2) cDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) bDMARD-IR; (4) bDMARD-IR for whom rituximab (RTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (5) bDMARD-IR for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; and, (6) cDMARD-IR with moderate RA. According to the company's economic analyses, in cDMARD-IR with severe RA, TOF plus MTX dominates or extendedly dominates most comparators, whilst TOF monotherapy is slightly less effective and less expensive than its comparators, with the cost saved per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost always higher than £50,000. In bDMARD-IR with severe RA, RTX plus MTX dominated TOF plus MTX, but in patients for whom RTX was not an option, TOF plus MTX dominated all comparators included in the analysis (four comparators recommended by NICE were not included). In cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY for TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy compared with a sequence of cDMARDs was estimated to be greater than £50,000/QALY. The ERG identified a number of limitations in the company's analyses, including use of a fixed-effects model in the NMA and the use of treatment sequences in the cost-effectiveness model which did not reflect NICE recommendations. These limitations were addressed partly by the company during the clarification round and partly by the ERG. The exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG resulted in similar conclusions: (1) TOF plus MTX was dominated by RTX plus MTX; (2) TOF in combination with MTX or as monotherapy dominates or extendedly dominates some of its comparators in cDMARD-IR and bDMARD-IR with severe RA for whom RTX plus MTX was not an option; and (3) in cDMARD-IR with moderate RA, the cost per QALY of TOF in combination with MTX or as a monotherapy versus cDMARDs was in excess of £47,000. The NICE Appraisal Committee consequently recommended TOF plus MTX as an option for patients whose disease has responded inadequately to intensive therapy with a combination of cDMARDs only if (1) disease is severe [a Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of more than 5.1] and (2) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the Patient Access Scheme (PAS). TOF plus MTX is also recommended as an option for adults whose disease has responded inadequately to, or who cannot have, other DMARDs, including at least one bDMARD, only if (1) disease is severe, (2) they cannot have RTX, and (3) the company provides TOF with the discount agreed in the PAS. For patients who are intolerant of MTX, or where MTX is contraindicated, TOF monotherapy is recommended where TOF plus MTX would be recommended

Relationship between time-integrated disease activity estimated by DAS28-CRP and radiographic progression of anatomical damage in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The main aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between persistent disease activity and radiographic progression of joint damage in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty-eight patients with active ERA was assessed every 3 months for disease activity for 3 years. Radiographic damage was measured by the Sharp/van der Heijde method (SHS). The cumulative inflammatory burden was estimated by the time-integrated values (area under the curve-AUC) of Disease Activity Score 28 joint based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in rapid progressors versus non-progressors. Bland and Altman's 95% limits of agreement method were used to estimate the smallest detectable difference (SDD) of radiographic progression. The relationship between clinical and laboratory predictors of radiographic progression and their interactions with time was analysed by logistic regression model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 3-years of follow-up, radiographic progression was observed in 54.2% (95%CI: 39.8% to 67.5%) of patients and SDD was 9.5 for total SHS. The percentage of patients with erosive disease increased from 33.3% at baseline to 76% at 36 months. The total SHS of the progressors worsened from a median (interquartile range) of 18.5 (15-20) at baseline to 38.5 (34-42) after 3 years (p < 0.0001) whereas non-progressors worsened from a median of 14.5 (13-20) at baseline to 22.5 (20-30) after 3 years (p < 0.001). In the regression model, time-integrated values of DAS28-CRP and anti-CCP positivity have the highest positive predictive value for progression (both at level of p < 0.0001). Radiographic progression was also predicted by a positive IgM-RF (p0.0009), and a high baseline joint damage (p = 0.0044).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These data indicate that the level of disease activity, as measured by time-integrated DAS28-CRP, anti-CCP and IgM-RF positivity and a high baseline joint damage, affects subsequent progression of radiographic damage in ERA.</p

Evaluation of separate quantitative radiographic features adds to the prediction of incident radiographic osteoarthritis in individuals with recent onset of knee pain: 5-year follow-up in the CHECK cohort

Objective: Detailed radiographic evaluation might enable the identification of osteoarthritis (OA) earlier in the disease. This study evaluated whether and which separate quantitative features on knee radiographs of individuals with recent onset knee pain are associated with incidence of radiographic OA and persistence and/or progression of clinical OA during 5-year follow-up. Method: From the Cohort Hip & Cohort Knee study participants with knee pain at baseline were evaluated. Radiographic OA development was defined as Kellgren & Lawrence (K&L) grade >= II at 5-year follow-up. Clinical OA was defined as persistent knee pain and as progression of Westen Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain and function score during follow-up. At baseline radiographic damage was determined by quantitative measurement of separate features using Knee Images Results: Measuring osteophyte area [odds ratio (OR) = 7.0] and minimum joint space width (OR = 0.7), in addition to demographic and clinical characteristics, improved the prediction of radiographic OA 5 years later [area under curve receiver operating characteristic = 0.74 vs 0.64 without radiographic features]. When the predictive score (based on multivariate regression coefficients) was larger than the cut-off for optimal specificity, the chance of incident radiographic OA was 54% instead of t Conclusion: In individuals with onset knee pain, radiographic characteristics added to the prediction of radiographic OA development 5 years later. Quantitative radiographic evaluation in individuals with suspected OA is worthwhile when determining treatment strategies and designing clinical trials. (C) 2012 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved