Dataset Information

Adverse Events and Resource Use Before and After Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Treat-to-target (TTT) is an accepted paradigm for care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because TTT can be associated with more medication switches, concerns arise regarding whether implementing TTT may increase adverse events and/or resource use. The aim of this study was to examine adverse events and resource use during the preintervention and intervention periods of the TTT intervention trial.

Methods

We used data from 6 practices enrolled in an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial to compare adverse events and resource use before (months 1-9) and during (months 10-18) a TTT intervention. The outcomes of interest, adverse events and resource use, were based on medical record review of all rheumatology visits for RA patients before and during the intervention.

Results

We examined records for 321 patients before the intervention and 315 during the intervention. An adverse event was recorded in 10.2% of visits before the intervention and 8.8% of visits during the intervention (P = 0.41). Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were taken by 53.6% of patients before the intervention and 49.8% of patients during the intervention (P = 0.73). Rheumatology visits were more frequent before the intervention (mean ± SD 4.0 ± 1.4) than during the intervention (mean ± SD 3.6 ± 1.2; P = 0.02). More visits were accompanied by monitoring laboratory tests before the intervention (90.0%) compared with during the intervention (52.7%; P < 0.001). A greater percentage of visits before the intervention included diagnostic imaging (15.4%) versus during the intervention (8.9%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

We observed similar rates of adverse events before and during the implementation of TTT for RA. Rheumatology visits, use of laboratory monitoring, and diagnostic imaging did not increase during the TTT intervention.

SUBMITTER: Solomon DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6421109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol may be associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was undertaken to determine whether the complex relationship between levels of LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and CV risk is different in RA patients as compared to non-RA controls.Using data from a US health insurance plan (2003-2012), we conducted a cohort study that included patients with RA and non-RA control subjects matched with regard to age, sex, and index date. The nonlinearity of associations between lipid levels and incidence of major adverse CV events (MACE) was tested. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine for an interaction between lipid levels and RA status in relation to the risk of MACE, after adjustment for CV risk factors.In total, 16,085 RA patients and 48,499 non-RA controls were studied. The mean age was 52.6 years and 78.6% were women. The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.72). No significant increase in CV risk was observed between the lowest quintile of LDL cholesterol levels (?91.0 mg/dl) and the second, third, or fourth quintiles, whereas the highest quintile (>190.0 mg/dl) conveyed a 40% increase in risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.17-1.68). The relationship between HDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was also nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.39). Compared to the lowest quintile of HDL cholesterol levels, each successive quintile was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.48-0.72 for lowest quintile [?43.0 mg/dl] versus highest quintile [>71.0 mg/dl]).The complex relationship between LDL cholesterol levels, HDL cholesterol levels, and risk of MACE was nonlinear in RA patients and also not statistically significantly different from that in an age- and sex-matched non-RA cohort.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have decreased survival because of increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population, and treatment with tocilizumab (TCZ) has been shown to increase lipid levels; however, the relationship between lipids and cardiovascular risk is unknown. This post hoc analysis expanded on previously reported 24-week results by characterizing statin use and subsequent changes in lipid parameters in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous TCZ (TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC) over 2 years of treatment.MethodsData were collected from patients with moderate to severe active RA who received ≥1 dose of the study drug in seven international, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 and 4 clinical trials of TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. Lipid levels and safety events were assessed over 2 years of treatment. Data were summarized for all pooled treatment groups of the intention-to-treat populations in the TCZ-IV and TCZ-SC studies, and results were stratified by concomitant statin use.ResultsData from this descriptive, retrospective, pooled analysis indicated that statins can stabilize lipid levels without a clinically significant increase in adverse events. Approximately 30% of patients in the TCZ treatment arms who never received a statin demonstrated a shift in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from <130 mg/dl at baseline to ≥130 mg/dl at 2 years. However, despite the increased potential cardiovascular risk, <15% of patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl and <35% of patients with a total cholesterol:high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol ratio >5 at 2 years were receiving concomitant statins.ConclusionConcomitant statin use attenuated TCZ-mediated lipid increases; however, a large proportion of TCZ-treated patients potentially at risk of cardiovascular disease were untreated. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of potential risk associated with TCZ-mediated lipid elevations as well as implementation of RA-specific guidelines on the recognition and management of elevated risk of cardiovascular events in patients with RA.FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:While dose escalation of golimumab has been used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who demonstrate an inadequate response to the standard dose, its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome observed by dose escalation of golimumab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the daily clinical setting. METHODS:A post hoc analysis was performed of data from the 24-week post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan (n?=?5154). A total of 301 patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline who underwent dose escalation of golimumab were assessed for effectiveness at 24 weeks based on several variables, such as DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI, as well as for medication persistence through 24 weeks. In addition, the study population was stratified by the time to dose escalation, and effectiveness was likewise evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a moderate/good EULAR response to golimumab at 24 weeks. RESULTS:Patients with golimumab dose escalation showed significant improvement of the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by reduction of the DAS28-CRP (?0.89), SDAI (?8.64), and CDAI (?8.28) scores. This result was relatively consistent across the subgroups stratified by the timing of dose escalation. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, 78.1% of the patients continued to receive golimumab at 24 weeks, and this was also similar among the subgroups stratified by the time to dose escalation. Multivariate analysis identified male sex and previous biologic therapy as factors that were significantly associated with the clinical response at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION:In real-world clinical practice, improvement of disease activity was observed after uptitration of golimumab from 50 to 100 mg regardless of the timing. Male patients and biologic-naive patients were more likely to respond to dose escalation of golimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION:UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000015895.

Project description:The treat-to-target (T2T) approach to the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis involves using validated metrics to measure disease activity, frequent follow-up visits for patients with moderate to high disease activity, and escalation of therapy when patients have inadequate therapeutic response as assessed by standard disease activity scores. The study described is a newly launched cluster-randomized behavioral intervention to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the T2T approach in US rheumatology practices. It is designed to identify patient and provider barriers to implementing T2T management. This initial paper focuses on the novel study design and methods created to provide these insights.This trial cluster-randomizes rheumatology practices from the existing Corrona network of private and academic sites rather than patients within sites or individual investigators to provide either T2T or usual care (UC) for qualified patients who meet the 2010 revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and have moderate to high disease activity. Specific medication choices are left to the investigator and patient, rather than being specified in the protocol. Enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with 30 practices randomized and enrolling a minimum of 530 patients. During the 12-month follow-up, visits are mandated as frequently as monthly in patients with active disease in the T2T group and every 3 months for the UC group. Safety data are collected at each visit. The coprimary endpoints include a comparison of the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity in the T2T and UC groups and assessment of the feasibility of implementing T2T in rheumatology practices, specifically assessment of the rates of treatment acceleration, frequency of visits, time to next visit conditional on disease activity, and probability of acceleration conditional on disease activity in the 2 groups.This cluster-randomized behavioral intervention study will provide valuable insights on the outcomes and feasibility of employing a T2T treatment approach in clinical practice in the United States.NCT01407419.

Project description:BackgroundAdjusting medication of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) until predefined disease activity targets are met, i.e. Treat-to-Target (T2T), is the currently recommended treatment approach. However, not much is known about long-term cost-effectiveness of different T2T strategies.We model the 5-year costs and effects of a step-up approach (MTX mono - > MTX + csDMARD combination - > Adalimumab - > second anti-TNF) and an initial combination therapy approach (MTX + csDMARD - > MTX + csDMARD higher dose - > anti-TNFs) from the healthcare and societal perspectives, by adapting a previously validated Markov model.MethodsWe constructed a Markov model in which 3-monthly transitions between DAS28-defined health states of remission (≤2.6), low (2.6 < DAS28 ≤ 3.2), moderate (3.2 < DAS28 ≤ 5.1), and high disease activity (DAS28 > 5.1) were simulated. Modelled patients proceeded to subsequent treatments in case of non-remission at each (3-month) cycle start. In case of remission for two consecutive cycles medication was tapered, until medication-free remission was achieved. Transition probabilities for individual treatment steps were estimated using data of Dutch Rheumatology Monitoring registry Remission Induction Cohort I (step-up) and II (initial combination). Expected costs, utility, and ICER after 5 years were compared between the two strategies. To account for parameter uncertainty, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed through Gamma, Normal, and Dirichlet distributions. All utilities, costs, and transition probabilities were replaced by fitted distributions.ResultsOver a 5-year timespan, initial combination therapy was less costly and more effective than step-up therapy. Initial combination therapy accrued €16,226.3 and 3.552 QALY vs €20,183.3 and 3.517 QALYs for step-up therapy. This resulted in a negative ICER, indicating that initial combination therapy was both less costly and more effective in terms of utility gained. This can be explained by higher (±5%) remission percentages in initial combination strategy at all time points. More patients in remission generates less healthcare and productivity loss costs and higher utility. Additionally, higher remission percentages caused less bDMARD use in the initial combination strategy, lowering overall costs.ConclusionInitial combination therapy was found favourable over step-up therapy in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, when considering cost-effectiveness. Initial combination therapy resulted in more utility at a lower cost over 5 years.

Project description:The identification of biomarkers that predict optimal and individual choices of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis gains increasing attention. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the proto-oncogene survivin might aid in treatment decisions in early rheumatoid arthritis.Serum survivin levels were measured in 302 patients who completed the Swedish pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. Survivin levels > 0.45 ng/mL were considered positive. Based on the survivin status, core set outcomes measuring disease activity, functional disability, as well as global health and pain were evaluated after methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy at 3 months, and at 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Treatment of non-responders was randomly intensified with either a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (triple therapy: MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or by adding antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF).Antirheumatic treatment resulted in an overall decrease of serum survivin levels. Survivin-positive patients at baseline who initially responded to MTX had a higher risk of disease re-activation (OR 3.21 (95% CI 1.12-9.24), P?=?0.032) and failed to improve in their functional disability (P?=?0.018) if having continued on MTX monotherapy compared to survivin-negative patients. Ever-smokers who were survivin-positive were less likely to respond to MTX than those who were survivin-negative (OR 1.91 (1.01-3.62), P?=?0.045). In survivin-positive patients, triple therapy led to better improvements in disease activity than did MTX?+?anti-TNF. At 24 months, survivin-positive patients randomized to anti-TNF had a higher risk of active disease than those randomized to triple therapy (OR 3.15 (1.09-9.10), P?=?0.037).We demonstrate for the first time that survivin is a valuable serologic marker that can distinguish drug-specific clinical responses in early rheumatoid arthritis through the pragmatic clinical setting of the care-based SWEFOT trial. Although treatment response cannot solely be attributable to survivin status, per protocol sensitivity analyses confirmed the superior effect of triple therapy on survivin-positive patients.Survivin-positive patients have poor outcomes if treated with MTX monotherapy. A decrease of survivin levels during treatment is associated with better clinical responses. For survivin-positive patients who fail MTX, triple therapy is associated with better outcomes than anti-TNF therapy.WHO database at the Karolinska University Hospital: CT20080004 ; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00764725, registered 1 October 2008.