[Economic evaluation of rheumathoid arthritis monotherapy with tocilizumab and adalimumab]. / Evaluación económica de la monoterapia con tocilizumab frente a adalimumab en artritis reumatoide.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab (TCZ) was superior to adalimumab (ADA), as monotherapy, in reducing signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when methotrexate (MTX) treatment is poorly tolerated or inappropriate. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of TCZ vs ADA in these patients. METHODS: Economic evaluation of the cost per response or remission of TCZ vs ADA from ADACTA (time horizon: 24 weeks). Clinical response criteria ACR or disease remission criteria, DAS28. PERSPECTIVE: National Health System. The costs included (acquisition, administration and monitoring of medicines; € 2012) were obtained from Spanish sources. Simple univariate sensitivity analyzes were performed. RESULTS: ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates with TCZ and ADA were obtained in 65% and 49.4% (p <0.01), 47.2% and 27.8% (p <0.01); and 32.5% and 17.9% (p <0.01) of patients, respectively. DAS28 remission occurred in 39.9% and 10.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The cost per response was lower with TCZ than with ADA (ACR20: € 8,105 and € 11,553; ACR50: € 11,162 and € 20,529; ACR70: € 16,211 and € 31,882) respectively. The cost of DAS28 remission was € 13,204 and € 54,352, respectively. Treatment with TCZ was dominant (more effective, with lower costs vs ADA) in all scenarios analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: According to this analysis, in Spain TCZ monotherapy is an efficient strategy vs ADA for treating RA patients intolerant to MTX or in which there is inappropriate response.

Evaluación económica de la monoterapia con tocilizumab frene a adalimumab en artritis reumatoide / Economic evaluation of rheumathoid arthritis monotherapy with Tocilizumab and Adalimumab

FUNDAMENTO: Tocilizumab (TCZ) fue superior a adalimumab (ADA) en monoterapia en la reducción de los signos y síntomas de la artritis reumatoide del adulto (AR) en pacientes intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a metotrexato (MTX). El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el coste-efectividad de TCZ vs ADA en estos pacientes. Métodos: Evaluación económica del coste por respuesta o remisión con TCZ vs ADA a partir del estudio ADACTA (horizonte temporal: 24 semanas). Criterios de respuesta clínica ACR o de remisión de la enfermedad, índice DAS28. Ámbito: Sistema Nacional de Salud. Los costes incluidos (adquisición, administración y monitorización de los medicamentos en € de 2012) se obtuvieron de fuentes españolas. Se efectuaron análisis de sensibilidad simples univariantes. Resultados: Las tasas de respuesta ACR20, ACR50 y ACR70 con TCZ y ADA se obtuvieron en el 65% y 49,4% (p <0,01); 47,2% y 27,8% (p <0,01); y en el 32,5% y 17,9% (p <0,01) de los pacientes, respectivamente. La remisión DAS28 se produjo en el 39,9% y 10,5%, respectivamente (p <0,0001). El coste por respuesta fue menor con TCZ que con ADA (ACR20: 8.105 y 11.553 €; ACR50: 11.162 y 20.529 €; ACR70: 16.211 y 31.882 €) respectivamente. El coste de la remisión DAS28 fue de 13.204 € y 54.352 € respectivamente. En todos los escenarios el tratamiento con TCZ tuvo mayor eficacia y menores costes que con ADA. Conclusiones: Según este análisis, en España la monoterapia con TCZ es una estrategia eficiente frente a ADA para el tratamiento de los pacientes con AR intolerantes o con respuesta inadecuada a MTX

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab (TCZ) was superior to adalimumab (ADA), as monotherapy, in reducing signs and symptoms of adult rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when methotrexate (MTX) treatment is poorly tolerated or inappropriate. The aim of the study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of TCZ vs ADA in these patients. METHODS: Economic evaluation of the cost per response or remission of TCZ vs ADA from ADACTA (time horizon: 24 weeks). Clinical response criteria ACR or disease remission criteria, DAS28. Perspective: National Health System. The costs included (acquisition, administration and monitoring of medicines; € 2012) were obtained from Spanish sources. Simple univariate sensitivity analyzes were performed. RESULTS: ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response rates with TCZ and ADA were obtained in 65% and 49.4% (p <0.01), 47.2% and 27.8% (p <0.01); and 32.5% and 17.9% (p <0.01) of patients, respectively. DAS28 remission occurred in 39.9% and 10.5%, respectively (p <0.0001). The cost per response was lower with TCZ than with ADA (ACR20: € 8,105 and € 11,553; ACR50: € 11,162 and € 20,529; ACR70: € 16,211 and € 31,882) respectively. The cost of DAS28 remission was € 13,204 and € 54,352, respectively. Treatment with TCZ was dominant (more effective, with lower costs vs ADA) in all scenarios analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: According to this analysis, in Spain TCZ monotherapy is an efficient strategy vs ADA for treating RA patients intolerant to MTX or in which there is inappropriate response

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this 12-month, phase 3 trial, 717 patients who were receiving stable doses of methotrexate were randomly assigned to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 40 mg of adalimumab once every 2 weeks, or placebo. At month 3, patients in the placebo group who did not have a 20% reduction from baseline in the number of swollen and tender joints were switched in a blinded fashion to either 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily; at month 6, all patients still receiving placebo were switched to tofacitinib in a blinded fashion. The three primary outcome measures were a 20% improvement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to month 3 in the score on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (which ranges from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability); and the percentage of patients at month 6 who had a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating greater disease activity). RESULTS: At month 6, ACR 20 response rates were higher among patients receiving 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib (51.5% and 52.6%, respectively) and among those receiving adalimumab (47.2%) than among those receiving placebo (28.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There were also greater reductions in the HAQ-DI score at month 3 and higher percentages of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) below 2.6 at month 6 in the active-treatment groups than in the placebo group. Adverse events occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with placebo, and pulmonary tuberculosis developed in two patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group. Tofacitinib was associated with an increase in both low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and with reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate, tofacitinib was significantly superior to placebo and was numerically similar to adalimumab in efficacy. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Standard ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853385.).

Maraviroc, a chemokine receptor-5 antagonist, fails to demonstrate efficacy in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine whether maraviroc, a human CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist, is safe and effective in the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients on background methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: This phase IIa study comprised two distinct components: an open-label safety study of the pharmacokinetics (PK) of MTX in the presence of maraviroc, and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept (POC) component. In the PK component, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive maraviroc 150 or 300 mg twice daily (BID) for four weeks. In the POC component, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive maraviroc 300 mg BID or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients were not eligible for inclusion in both components. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were treated in the safety/PK component. Maraviroc was well tolerated and there was no evidence of drug-drug interaction with MTX. One hundred ten patients were treated in the POC component. The study was terminated after the planned interim futility analysis due to lack of efficacy, at which time 59 patients (38 maraviroc; 21 placebo) had completed their week 12 visit. There was no significant difference in the number of ACR20 responders between the maraviroc (23.7%) and placebo (23.8%) groups (treatment difference -0.13%; 90% CI -20.45, 17.70; P = 0.504). The most common all-causality treatment-emergent adverse events in the maraviroc group were constipation (7.8%), nausea (5.2%), and fatigue (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Maraviroc was generally well tolerated over 12 weeks; however, selective antagonism of CCR5 with maraviroc 300 mg BID failed to improve signs and symptoms in patients with active RA on background MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00427934.