The Effect of Perfusate Temperature on Delayed Graft Function in Deceased Donor Renal Transplantation.

Introduction: Renal allograft hypothermic machine perfusion results in a decreased incidence of delayed graft function compared with static cold storage. Ensuring perfusate temperatures remain within the target range of 4-10 °C may impact delayed graft function rates. Project Aims: To identify whether this target was achieved and, if not, whether higher perfusate temperature was associated with delayed graft function. Design: In this retrospective cohort study, transplanted grafts from deceased donors placed on hypothermic machine perfusion pump from June 2019 to August 2020 were analyzed. Measurements were recovered after 5, 15, 60, and 180 min of perfusion. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of delayed graft function. Results: A total of 113 grafts from 94 donors were analyzed. Of these, 21 (19%) developed delayed graft function. On univariable logistic regression, variables associated with delayed graft function included older donor age (OR 1.08, P = .002), higher Kidney Donor Profile Index score (OR 1.03, P = .024), and higher 5-min perfusate temperature (T5 min; OR 1.49, P = .014). A higher T5 min was also associated with delayed graft function in multivariable logistic regression models (OR 1.58, P = .005; OR 1.37, P = .08). Grafts with T5 min >10 °C were more likely to experience delayed graft function than those with T5 min <10 °C (OR 4.5, P = .006). Conclusion: Higher early perfusate temperature was an independent predictor of delayed graft function and may be due to inadequate cooling of the circuit prior to placing grafts on pump. Quality improvement initiatives targeting early perfusate temperatures of ≤10 °C may reduce delayed graft function incidence.

Heterogeneity of treatment responses in rheumatoid arthritis using group based trajectory models: secondary analysis of clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials classify patients as responders and non-responders; they ignore the potential range of treatment responses. Group Based Trajectory Models (GBTMs) provide a more refined approach. They identify patient subgroups with similar outcome trajectories. We used GBTMs to classify patients into subgroups of varying responses and explore factors associated with different responses to intensive treatment in a secondary analysis of intensive treatment in the TITRATE clinical trial. METHODS: The TITRATE trial enrolled 335 patients with RA: 168 patients were randomised to receive intensive management, which comprised monthly assessments including measures of the disease activity score for 28 joints (DAS28), treatment escalation when patients were not responding sufficiently and psychosocial support; 163 of these patients completed the trial. We applied GBTMs to monthly DAS28 scores over one year to these patients who had received intensive management. The control group had standard care and were assessed every 6 months; they had too few DAS28 scores for applying GBTMs. RESULTS: GBTMs identified three distinct trajectories in the patients receiving intensive management: good (n = 40), moderate (n = 76) and poor (n = 47) responders. Baseline body mass index (BMI), disability, fatigue and depression levels were significantly different between trajectory groups. Few (10%) good responders were obese, compared to 38% of moderate, and 43% of poor responders (P = 0.002). Few (8%) good responders had depression, compared to 14% moderate responders, and 38% poor responders (P < 0.001). The key difference in treatments was using high-cost biologics, used in only 5% of good responders but 30% of moderate and 51% of poor responders (P < 0.001). Most good responders had endpoint remissions and low disability, pain, and fatigue scores; few poor responders achieved any favourable outcomes. CONCLUSION: GBTMs identified three trajectories of disease activity progression in patients receiving intensive management for moderately active RA. Baseline variables like obesity and depression predicted different treatment responses. Few good responders needed biologic drugs; they responded to conventional DMARDs alone. GBTMs have the potential to facilitate precision medicine enabling patient-oriented treatment strategies based on key characteristics. REGISTRATION: TITRATE Trial ISRCTN 70160382.

Characterization of missing data patterns and mechanisms in longitudinal composite outcome trial in rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Composite measures, like the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints (DAS28), are key primary outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials. DAS28 combines four different components in a continuous measure. When one or more of these components are missing the overall composite score is also missing at intermediate or trial endpoint assessments. Objectives: This study examined missing data patterns and mechanisms in a longitudinal RA trial to evaluate how best to handle missingness when analysing composite outcomes. Design: The Tumour-Necrosis-Factor Inhibitors against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT) trial was an open label, pragmatic randomized multicentre two arm non-inferiority study. Patients were followed up for 12 months, with monthly measurement of the composite outcome and its components. Active RA patients were randomized to conventional disease modifying drugs (cDMARDs) or Tumour Necrosis Factor-α inhibitors (TNFis). Methods: The TACIT trial was used to explore the extent of missing data in the composite outcome, DAS28. Patterns of missing data in components and the composite outcome were examined graphically. Longitudinal multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed missing data mechanisms during follow-up. Results: Two hundred and five patients were randomized: at 12 months 59/205 (29%) had unobserved composite outcome and 146/205 (71%) had an observed DAS28 outcome; however, 34/146 had one or more intermediate assessments missing. We observed mixed missing data patterns, especially for the missing composite outcome due to one component missing rather than patient not attending thier visit. Age and gender predicted missingness components, providing strong evidence the missing observations were unlikely to be Missing Completely at Random (MCAR). Conclusion: Researchers should undertake detailed evaluations of missing data patterns and mechanisms at the final and intermediate time points, whether or not the outcome variable is a composite outcome. In addition, the impact on treatment estimates in patients who only provide data at milestone assessments need to be assessed. Trial Registration ISRCTN Number: 37438295.

Defining the relationship between pain intensity and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of six studies.

BACKGROUND: Pain is the main concern of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) while reducing disease activity dominates specialist management. Disease activity assessments like the disease activity score for 28 joints with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) omit pain creating an apparent paradox between patients' concerns and specialists' treatment goals. We evaluated the relationship of pain intensity and disease activity in RA with three aims: defining associations between pain intensity and disease activity and its components, evaluating discordance between pain intensity and disease activity, and assessing temporal changes in pain intensity and disease activity. METHODS: We undertook secondary analyses of five trials and one observational study of RA patients followed for 12 months. The patients had early and established active disease or sustained low disease activity or remission. Pain was measured using 100-mm visual analogue scales. Individual patient data was pooled across all studies and by types of patients (early active, established active and established remission). Associations of pain intensity and disease activity were evaluated by correlations (Spearman's), linear regression methods and Bland-Altman plots. Discordance was assessed by Kappa statistics (for patients grouped into high and low pain intensity and disease activity). Temporal changes were assessed 6 monthly in different patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 1132 patients were studied: 490 had early active RA, 469 had established active RA and 173 were in remission/low disease activity. Our analyses showed, firstly, that pain intensity is associated with disease activity in general, and particularly with patient global assessments, across all patient groups. Patient global assessments were a reasonable proxy for pain intensity. Secondly, there was some discordance between pain intensity and disease activity across all disease activity levels, reflecting similar discrepancies in patient global assessments. Thirdly, there were strong temporal relationships between changes in disease activity and pain intensity. When mean disease activity fell, mean pain intensity scores also fell; when mean disease activity increased, there were comparable increases in pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show pain intensity is an integral part of disease activity, though it is not measured directly in DAS28-ESR. Reducing disease activity is crucial for reducing pain intensity in RA.

Baseline predictors of remission, pain and fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show intensive treatment to induce remission is effective in patients with highly active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The TITRATE trial showed that the benefits of intensive treatment also extend to moderately active RA. However, many patients failed to achieve remission or show improvements in pain and fatigue. We investigated whether baseline predictors could identify treatment non-responders. METHODS: The impact of obesity, depression, anxiety and illness perception on RA outcomes, including disease activity, remission, pain and fatigue were determined using a pre-planned secondary analysis of the TITRATE trial data. RESULTS: Body mass index was associated with disease activity levels and remission: obese patients had a higher overall disease activity and fewer obese patients achieved remission. Intensive management was not associated with increased remission in these patients. Obesity was also associated with increased overall pain and fatigue. Anxiety, depression and health perceptions had no discernible impact on disease activity but were associated with high levels of pain and fatigue. There was a strong association between anxiety and high pain scores; and between depression and high fatigue scores; and health perception was strongly related to both. None of the predictors had an important impact on pain and fatigue reduction in cross-sectional analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Disease activity is higher in obese patients and they have fewer remissions over 12 months. Anxiety, depression and health perceptions were associated with higher pain and fatigue scores. Intensive management strategies need to account for these baseline features as they impact significantly on clinical and psychological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 70160382 ; date registered 16 January 2014.

The value, impact and role of nurses in rheumatology outpatient care: Critical review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: As rheumatology nurses make substantial contributions to intensive management programmes following 'treat to target' principles of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is a need to understand the impacts of their involvement. A structured literature review was undertaken of qualitative studies, clinical trials and observational studies to assess the impacts of rheumatology nurses on clinical outcomes and the experiences of patients with RA and to examine the skills and training of the nurses involved. METHOD: A structured literature review was conducted to examine the value, impact and professional role of nurses in RA management. RESULTS: The literature search identified 657 publications, and 20 of them were included comprising: seven qualitative studies (242 patients), nine trials (a total of 2,440 patients) and four observational studies (1,234 patients). In clinical trials, nurses achieved similar patient clinical outcomes to doctors, and nurses also enhanced patients' satisfaction of received care and self-efficacy. In the qualitative studies reviewed, the nurses increased patients' knowledge and promoted their self-management. The observational studies studied examined found that nursing care led to improved patients' global functioning. The nurses in the various studies had a wide range of titles, experiences and training. DISCUSSION: Our structured literature review provides strong evidence that rheumatology nurses are effective in delivering care for RA patients. However, their titles, experience and training were highly variable. CONCLUSION: There is a convincing case to maintain and extend the role of nurses in managing RA, but further work is needed on standardisation of their titles and training.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pragmatic, Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intensive combinations of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS) achieve similar clinical benefits more cheaply than high-cost biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose illness has failed to respond to methotrexate and another DMARD. METHODS: We used within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from health and social care and 2 societal perspectives. Participants were recruited into an open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, noninferiority trial in 24 rheumatology clinics in England and Wales. Costs were linked with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years derived from 2 measures (Short-Form 36 health survey and EuroQol 5-domain 3-level instrument). RESULTS: In total, 205 participants were recruited, 104 in the csDMARD arm and 101 in the TNFi arm. Participants in the csDMARD arm with poor response at 6 months were offered TNFi; 46 participants (44%) switched. Relevant cost and outcome data were available for 93% of participants at 6-month follow-up and for 91-92% of participants at 12-month follow-up. The csDMARD arm had significantly lower total costs from all perspectives (6-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£3,615 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4,104, -3,182]; 12-month health and social care adjusted mean difference -£1,930 [95% CI -2,599, -1,301]). The HAQ score showed benefit to the csDMARD arm at 12 months (-0.16 [95% CI -0.32, -0.01]); other outcomes/follow-ups showed no differences. CONCLUSION: Starting treatment with csDMARDs, rather than TNFi, achieves similar outcomes at significantly lower costs. Patients with active RA and who meet the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for expensive biologics can be treated with combinations of intensive csDMARDs in a cost-effective manner.

A systematic review of guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed current guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to evaluate their range and nature, assess variations in their recommendations and highlight divergence in their perspectives. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases using the terms 'clinical practice guidelines' and 'rheumatoid arthritis' from January 2000 to January 2017 together with publications of national and international bodies. We included guidelines providing recommendations on general RA management spanning a range of treatments and published in English. We undertook narrative assessments due to the heterogeneity of the guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 529 articles; 22 met our inclusion criteria. They were primarily developed by rheumatologists with variable involvement of patient and other experts. Three dealt with early RA, one established RA and 18 all patients. Most guidelines recommend regular assessments based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology core dataset; 18 recommended the disease activity score for 28 joints. Twenty recommended targeting remission; 16 suggested low disease activity as alternative. All guidelines recommend treating active RA; 13 made recommendations for moderate disease. The 21 guidelines considering early RA all recommended starting disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) as soon as possible; methotrexate was recommended for most patients. Nineteen recommended combination DMARDs when patients failed to respond fully to monotherapy and biologics were not necessarily indicated. Twenty made recommendations about biologics invariably suggesting their use after failing conventional DMARDs, particularly methotrexate. Most did not make specific recommendations about using one class of biologics preferentially. Eight recommended tapering biologics when patients achieved sustained good responses. CONCLUSIONS: Five general principles transcend most guidelines: DMARDs should be started as soon as possible after the diagnosis; methotrexate is the best initial treatment; disease activity should be regularly monitored; give biologics to patients with persistently active disease who have already received methotrexate; remission or low disease activity are the preferred treatment target.

Real world long-term impact of intensive treatment on disease activity, disability and health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The emphasis on treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) intensively reduces disease activity but its impact in routine care is uncertain. We evaluated temporal changes in disease activities and outcomes in a 10-year prospective observational cohort study of patients in routine care at one unit. METHODS: The Guy's and St Thomas' RA cohort was established in 2005. It involved most RA patients managed in this hospital. Clinical diagnoses of RA were made by rheumatologists. Patients were seen regularly in routine care. Each visit included measurement of disease activity scores for 28 joints (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire scores (HAQ) and EuroQol scores. Patients received intensive treatments targeting DAS28 remission. RESULTS: In 1693 RA patients mean DAS28 scores fell from 2005 to 15 by 11% from 4.08 (95% CI: 3.91, 4.25) in 2005 to 3.64 (3.34, 3.78); these falls were highly significant (p < 0.001). DAS28 components: swollen joint counts fell by 32% and ESR by 24%; in contrast tender joint counts and patient global assessments showed minimal or no reductions. The reduction in DAS28 scores was predominantly between 2005 and 2010, with no falls from 2011 onwards. Associated with falls in mean DAS28s, patients achieving remission increased (18% in 2005; 27% in 2015) and the number with active disease (DAS28 > 5.1) decreased (25% in 2005; 16% in 2015). In 752 patients seen at least annually for 3 years, persisting remission (68 patients) and intermittent remission (376 patients) were associated with less disability and better health related quality of life. Over time biologic use increased, but they were used infrequently in patients in persistent remission. CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years an intensive management strategy in a routine practice setting increased combination DMARD and biologic use: disease activity levels declined; this association is in keeping with a causal relationship. Patients who achieved remission, even transiently, had better functional outcomes than patients never achieving remission.

Intensive therapy and remissions in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the effectiveness of intensive treatment strategies in achieving remission in patients with both early and established Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluated trials and comparative studies reporting remission in RA patients treated intensively with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Analysis used RevMan 5.3 to report relative risks (RR) in random effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We identified 928 publications: 53 studies were included (48 superiority studies; 6 head-to-head trials). In the superiority studies 3013/11259 patients achieved remission with intensive treatment compared with 1211/8493 of controls. Analysis of the 53 comparisons showed a significant benefit for intensive treatment (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.90, 2.61). Intensive treatment increased remissions in both early RA (23 comparisons; RR 1.56; 1.38, 1.76) and established RA (29 comparisons RR 4.21, 2.92, 6.07). All intensive strategies (combination DMARDs, biologics, JAK inhibitors) increased remissions. In the 6 head-to-head trials 317/787 patients achieved remission with biologics compared with 229/671 of patients receiving combination DMARD therapies and there was no difference between treatment strategies (RR 1.06; 0.93. 1.21). There were differences in the frequency of remissions between early and established RA. In early RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 49% compared with 34% in controls. In established RA the frequency of remissions with active treatment was 19% compared with 6% in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive treatment with combination DMARDs, biologics or JAK inhibitors increases the frequency of remission compared to control non-intensive strategies. The benefits are seen in both early and established RA.

Flares in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Low Disease Activity: Predictability and Association with Worse Clinical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of flare in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with low disease activity (LDA) and to evaluate the effect of flare on 12-month clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients with RA who were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and had a stable 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) < 3.2 were eligible for inclusion. At baseline and every 3 months, clinical (DAS28), functional [Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), EQ-5D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue scale (FACIT-F), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36)], serum biomarkers [multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score, calprotectin, CXCL10], and imaging data were collected. Flare was defined as an increase in DAS28 compared with baseline of > 1.2, or > 0.6 if concurrent DAS28 ≥ 3.2. Cox regression analyses were used to identify baseline predictors of flare. Biomarkers were cross-sectionally correlated at time of flare. Linear regressions were performed to compare clinical outcomes after 1 year. RESULTS: Of 152 patients, 46 (30%) experienced a flare. Functional disability at baseline was associated with flare: HAQ-DI had an unadjusted HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.20-2.72) and EQ-5D had HR 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.57). In multivariate analyses, only HAQ-DI remained a significant independent predictor of flare (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05-2.93). At time of flare, DAS28 and its components significantly correlated with MBDA and calprotectin, but correlation coefficients were low at 0.52 and 0.49, respectively. Two-thirds of flares were not associated with a rise in biomarkers. Patients who flared had significantly worse outcomes at 12 months (HAQ-DI, EQ-5D, FACIT-F, SF-36, and radiographic progression). CONCLUSION: Flares occur frequently in RA patients with LDA and are associated with worse disease activity, quality of life, and radiographic progression. Higher baseline HAQ-DI was modestly predictive of flare, while biomarker correlation at the time of flare suggests a noninflammatory component in a majority of events.

Sarilumab 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 (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Sanofi Genzyme) of sarilumab (SAR; Kevzara®) to submit evidence of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for previously treated moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 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 effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence in the company's submission for SAR was based predominantly on five randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of SAR against adalimumab, tocilizumab or placebo. The clinical effectiveness review identified no head-to-head evidence on the efficacy of SAR against all the comparators within the scope. Therefore, the company performed three network meta-analyses (NMAs) in two different populations: two in patients who had had an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) (one for combination therapies and one for monotherapies) and the other one in patients who had had an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). The company's NMAs concluded that SAR in combination with cDMARDs or as monotherapy has a statistically superior efficacy to cDMARDs and a comparable efficacy to most biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in both populations. The company submitted a Markov model that assessed the cost-effectiveness of SAR from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services in seven different populations: (1) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs (cDMARD-IR); (2) cDMARD-IR patients with severe RA for whom methotrexate (MTX) is contraindicated or not tolerated; (3) patients with severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a TNFi (TNFi-IR); (4) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom rituximab (RTX) is not an option; (5) TNFi-IR patients with severe RA for whom MTX is contraindicated or not tolerated; (6) TNFi-IR patients after RTX; and (7) cDMARD-IR patients with moderate RA whose 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) is between 4.0 and 5.1. The company's economic evaluation resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) lower than £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy versus its comparators when the comparators were less effective, and it resulted in cost savings higher than £60,000 per QALY lost when SAR was less effective, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible (where the ICER for SAR + MTX compared with RTX + MTX was £130,691 per QALY gained) and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0 (where the ICER of SAR + MTX compared with MTX was £38,254 per QALY gained). Following a critique of the model, the ERG undertook exploratory analyses after applying two changes to the company's model: (1) use of a latent class approach to model Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) progression for patients on cDMARDs; and (2) amendment of the company's modelling of patient progression from moderate to severe RA. The ICERs estimated by the ERG's exploratory analyses for SAR + MTX increased to £171,466 per QALY gained when compared with RTX + MTX in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible, and to £63,438 per QALY gained when compared with MTX in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0. The Appraisal Committee concluded that SAR in combination with MTX or as monotherapy is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered populations, except in TNFi-IR patients who are RTX eligible and in patients with moderate RA and a DAS28 of > 4.0.

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.

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.

Thromboembolism with Janus Kinase (JAK) Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis: How Real is the Risk?

Two different Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors-baricitinib and tofacitinib-are effective and licensed in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There have been recent concerns about potential thromboembolic risks with these drugs. Concerns about baricitinib focus on clinical trial findings. Using all publically available data, we estimate thromboembolic risks are approximately five events per 1000 patient years with 4 mg baricitinib daily. Concerns about tofacitinib have been raised by analyses of the Federal Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERs). These show some evidence of increased risks of pulmonary thrombosis, though not pulmonary embolism or venous thrombosis. Observational studies suggest in the general population and non-RA controls there are one to four thromboembolic events per 1000 patient years. In RA, thromboembolic risks increase to three to seven per 1000 patient years. The impact of biologics and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on disease risk appears minimal, and the number of thromboembolic events is between four and eight per 1000 patient years. In the short term, full details of thromboembolic events in trials of JAK inhibitors need to be published. As the numbers of thromboembolic events will be small and patients enrolled in trials are not representative of all RA patients who may receive JAK inhibitors, this information is unlikely to provide definitive answers. Consequently, in the longer term, large observational studies are needed to accurately quantify thromboembolic risks attributable to JAK inhibitors and other drugs used to treat RA, and differentiate these from risks attributable to RA itself and its comorbidities.

Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing Symptoms of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Synovitis is believed to play a role in producing symptoms in persons with hand osteoarthritis, but data on slow-acting anti-inflammatory treatments are sparse. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo as an analgesic treatment of hand osteoarthritis. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with 12-month follow-up. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN91859104). Setting: 13 primary and secondary care centers in England. Participants: Of 316 patients screened, 248 participants (82% women; mean age, 62.7 years) with symptomatic (pain ≥4 on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale) and radiographic hand osteoarthritis were randomly assigned and 210 (84.7%) completed the 6-month primary end point. Intervention: Hydroxychloroquine (200 to 400 mg) or placebo (1:1) for 12 months with ongoing usual care. Measurements: The primary end point was average hand pain during the previous 2 weeks (on a 0- to 10-point numerical rating scale [NRS]) at 6 months. Secondary end points included self-reported pain and function, grip strength, quality of life, radiographic structural change, and adverse events. Baseline ultrasonography was done. Results: At 6 months, mean hand pain was 5.49 points in the placebo group and 5.66 points in the hydroxychloroquine group, with a treatment difference of -0.16 point (95% CI, -0.73 to 0.40 point) (P = 0.57). Results were robust to adjustments for adherence, missing data, and use of rescue medication. No significant treatment differences existed at 3, 6, or 12 months for any secondary outcomes. The percentage of participants with at least 1 joint with synovitis was 94% (134 of 143) on grayscale ultrasonography and 59% on power Doppler. Baseline structural damage or synovitis did not affect treatment response. Fifteen serious adverse events were reported (7 in the hydroxychloroquine group [3 defined as possibly related] and 8 in the placebo group). Limitation: Hydroxychloroquine dosage restrictions may have reduced efficacy. Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than placebo for pain relief in patients with moderate to severe hand pain and radiographic osteoarthritis. Primary Funding Source: Arthritis Research UK.

Impact of center volume and the adoption of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation.

Reports for pediatric kidney transplant recipients suggested better outcomes for ODN compared to LDN. Contemporary outcomes stratified by donor type and center volume have not been evaluated in a national dataset. UNOS data (2000-2014) were analyzed for pediatric living donor kidney transplant recipients. The primary outcome was GF; secondary outcomes were DGF, rejection, and patient survival. Live donor nephrectomies for pediatric recipients decreased 30% and transitioned from ODN to LDN. GF rates did not differ for ODN vs LDN (P = .24). GF was lowest at high volume centers (P < .01). Donor operative approach did not contribute to GF. LDN was associated with less rejection than ODN (OR 0.66, CI 0.5-0.87, P < .01). Analysis of the 0- to 5-yr recipient group showed no effect of ODN vs LDN on GF or rejection. For the contemporary era, there was no association between DGF and LDN in the 0- to 5-yr group (OR 1.12, CI 0.67-1.89, P = .67). Outcomes of kidney transplants in pediatric recipients following LDN have improved since its introduction and LDN should be the approach for live donor nephrectomy regardless of recipient age. The association between case volume and improved outcomes highlights future challenges in organ transplantation.

Variable impacts of different remission states on health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Targeting remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability. However, the impacts of different remission criteria and durations and their frequencies are uncertain. Our observational study assessed these factors. METHODS: We recruited RA patients with disease durations <10 years, stable suppressive therapies and stable disease activity scores for 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR) ≤3.2. Intermittent and sustained remisisons were classified using DAS28ESR, simple disease activity index (SDAI) and ACR/EULAR Boolean criteria. HRQoL, measured using SF-36, fatigue, EuroQol and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) was compared using time-integrated areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: 104 patients were enrolled and followed for 12 months. DAS28-ESR remissions were intermittent in 42%, sustained in 47% and absent in 11%. Boolean remissions were intermittent in 38%, sustained in 10% and absent in 52%. Baseline remissions by all criteria significantly improved HAQ, Euroqol, SF36 and fatigue scores compared with low disease activity (LDAS); AUCs showed significant benefits for all HRQoLs persisted over 12-months. Boolean remissions achieved most benefits. Over time all remission states gave significantly better HRQoL scores than LDAS. Sustained DAS28ESR and SDAI remissions improved HRQoL more than intermittent remissions. Sustained and intermittent Boolean remissions gave similar improvements. Analysis of SF-36 domains showed even sustained Boolean remissions failed to optimise pain and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: All remissions improve HRQoL but different criteria have variable impacts. Boolean remission had most impact but occurred least. There are trade-off between optimising individual impacts (Boolean remissions) and achieving maximal overall impacts (DAS28-ESR remissions).