Scott David L, Ibrahim Fowzia, Farewell Vern, O'Keeffe Aidan G, Ma Margaret, Walker David, Heslin Margaret, Patel Anita, Kingsley Gabrielle
Department of Rheumatology, King's College London School of Medicine, London, UK.
MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Oct;18(66):i-xxiv, 1-164. doi: 10.3310/hta18660.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.
We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.
An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.
The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.
Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.
The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.
The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.
Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.
Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
类风湿关节炎(RA)最初采用甲氨蝶呤和其他改善病情抗风湿药(DMARDs)进行治疗。对这类治疗无效的活动性RA患者可接受肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFis)治疗,其疗效显著但费用高昂。
我们评估了联合DMARDs(cDMARDs)在符合使用TNFis条件的RA患者中,能否以更低成本带来同等临床获益。
一项开放标签、为期12个月、实用、随机、多中心、双臂试验[肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂对比联合强化治疗(TACIT)]比较了这些治疗策略。然后我们系统回顾了所有可比的已发表试验。
TACIT试验涉及24家英国风湿病诊所。
符合使用TNFis条件的活动性RA患者。
TACIT试验比较了cDMARDs与TNFis加甲氨蝶呤或另一种DMARD;6个月无反应者若在cDMARD组则接受(a)TNFis治疗;若在TNFis组则接受(b)第二种TNFis治疗。
健康评估问卷(HAQ)是主要结局指标。欧洲五维生活质量量表(EQ-5D)、关节损伤、28个关节疾病活动评分(DAS28)、退出研究情况及不良反应为次要结局指标。经济评估将成本、HAQ变化和质量调整生命年(QALYs)联系起来。
共筛查432例患者;104例开始使用cDMARDs,101例开始使用TNFis。两组初始人口统计学和疾病评估相似。共有16例患者失访(cDMARD组9例,TNFis组7例),42例中断干预但仍接受随访(cDMARD组23例,TNFis组19例)。采用多重填补法对缺失数据进行意向性分析显示,初始使用cDMARDs组12个月时HAQ评分降低幅度大于初始使用TNFis组[调整线性回归系数0.15,95%置信区间(CI)-0.003至0.31;p = 0.046]。初始使用cDMARDs组12个月时EQ-5D评分增加幅度更大(调整线性回归系数-0.11,95%CI -0.18至-0.03;p = 0.009),而初始cDMARD组与初始TNFis组6个月时HAQ和EQ-5D评分变化以及6个月和12个月时关节损伤变化相似。纵向分析(调整后的广义估计方程)显示,初始TNFis组在前6个月DAS28较低(系数-0.63,95%CI -0.93至-0.34;p < 0.001),但6 - 12个月时两组无差异。初始cDMARD组36例患者和初始TNFis组44例患者实现DAS28缓解。两组缓解开始时间无差异(对数秩检验p = 0.085)。初始cDMARD组10例患者和初始TNFis组18例患者发生严重不良事件;分别有10例和6例患者因毒性反应停止治疗。经济评估显示,cDMARD组在6个月和12个月时QALY结局与TNFis组相似或更好,且成本显著更低。在系统回顾中,我们确定了3篇关于早期RA的试验(包括20 - 1049例患者)和19篇关于确诊RA的试验(包括40 - 982例患者),这些试验比较了(1)cDMARDs与DMARD单药治疗;(2)TNFis/甲氨蝶呤与甲氨蝶呤单药治疗;以及(3)cDMARDs与TNFis/甲氨蝶呤。结果显示cDMARDs和TNFis疗效及毒性相似。
对甲氨蝶呤和另一种DMARD治疗无效的活动性RA患者,起始使用cDMARDs或起始使用TNFis(将TNFis留作无反应者使用)可获得同等临床获益,但成本更低。只有少数患者通过cDMARDs或TNFis实现持续缓解;需要新策略来最大化缓解频率。
当前对照试验ISRCTN37438295。
本项目由英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估项目资助,将在《卫生技术评估》全文发表;第18卷,第66期。有关进一步的项目信息,请参见NIHR期刊图书馆网站。