Cost-effectiveness of low dose corticosteroids versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and COX-2 specific inhibitors in the long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used in nearly every patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as part of a comprehensive management programme, but their use can be associated with side-effects. Low dose corticosteroid (<10 mg/day prednisone) in the treatment of RA is controversial. Although it is effective and possibly disease modifying, concerns exist about potential adverse events. We assessed costs and health effects of corticosteroids compared with NSAIDs and cyclo-oxgenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors. METHODS: Markov (state transition) models were used to simulate a cohort of RA patients taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and either corticosteroids or NSAIDs. The regimens were assumed to be equally effective for the control of RA. Data on incidence, costs and consequences of adverse events from corticosteroids and from NSAIDs were taken from the literature. Costs were measured in 1999 US dollars; health effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed including best-case scenarios (0.5x adverse event rate) and worst-case scenarios (1.5x adverse event rate). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis corticosteroids were superior to NSAIDs. The sensitivity analyses of adverse event rate, using best-case and worst-case scenarios, and age showed that the results were sensitive to each combination of adverse event rate and age. In contrast, the sensitivity analyses of costs and utilities were robust. Using misoprostol or omeprazole prophylaxis with NSAIDs would make corticosteroids cost-effective. Compared with NSAIDs with COX-2 specific inhibition, corticosteroids were still cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids are more cost-effective than NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors in the long-term treatment of RA.

Risk factors for the HIV-associated lipodystrophy syndrome in a closed cohort of patients after 3 years of antiretroviral treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To identify prevalence and risk factors associated with the HIV-associated lipodystrophy syndrome (HIVLD) after 3 years of antiretroviral therapy, to investigate the diagnostic value of anthropometric measures and to assess the impact of HIVLD on quality of life. DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, multicentre, observational, cohort study was performed in 27 German teaching hospitals, nonacademic hospitals and private practices. A total of 221 HIV-positive patients commencing antiretroviral therapy between July and September 1996 were studied. The main outcome measure was lipodystrophy, defined as otherwise unexplained truncal fat accumulation and/or fat loss in face or extremities. The analysis consisted of multiple logistic regression models, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for anthropometric measures and visual analogue scales for quality of life. RESULTS: The prevalence of HIVLD after 3 years was 34%. The following variables were independently associated with HIV-LS: stavudine use > 12 months [odds ratio (OR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.9], CD4 count nadir < 200 cells/microL (OR 2.2, CI 1.1-4.6), hypertriglyceridaemia (OR 2.3, CI 1.3-4.2) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) intake > 12 months (OR 0.2, CI 0.04-0.87). No cut-off point was found for anthropometric indices with a sensitivity and specificity of > or = 0.8. The mean visual analogue ratings for impaired quality of life, on a scale of 0-10, were: 5.2 (self-esteem), 2.9 (social contacts), 4.2 (sexuality) and 3.5 (daily activities). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a multifactorial aetiology for HIVLD. Stavudine use and a CD4 count below 200 cells/microL may be associated with an increased risk for the development of HIVLD. In contrast, NNRTI treatment may be associated with a reduced risk. Anthropometric indices were found to be insufficient as a diagnostic tool. Quality of life was severely affected by HIVLD.

Hydroxychloroquine retinopathy despite regular ophthalmologic evaluation: a consecutive series.

We describe a consecutive series of patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) retinopathy. Their clinical features illustrate that with normal renal function there is no threshold for total dosage for HCQ toxicity; that color vision testing is important; that almost all patients complain of altered central vision as their first symptom; and that a normal optic fundus does not exclude the diagnosis. Finally, HCQ retinopathy may progress even when the agent is stopped.

Responsiveness and sensitivity to change of SLE disease activity measures.

The ability of outcome measures to detect change over time is critical for their usefulness in clinical trials. Two concepts are applied in the assessment of evaluative instruments: We endorse the recommendation that a distinction be made between sensitivity and responsiveness. Sensitivity to change refers to the capacity of instruments to measure change statistically. Sensitivity statistics relate the magnitude of observed change to some measure of variablity and are essentially signal-to-noise ratios. Responsiveness addresses the detection of clinically relevant change. The methodology is still evolving but a common approach has been to correlate the observed change in scores with external standards that are believed to indicate clinical relevance (e.g., physician- or patient-based transition scales). Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of SLE activity indices have been addressed in a small number of studies. These indicate that the most widely used systems (SLEDAI. SLAM, BILAG) are sensitive to change although the available evidence does not allow preference for one instrument over the others. Little research has been done on the responsiveness of these measures. This article reviews the methodological concepts in measuring clinical change and summarizes reports on sensitivity and responsiveness of lupus activity scores.

Methodological issues of corticosteroid use in SLE clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze how investigators handled concurrent steroid intake in SLE clinical trials; to identify remaining methodological problems and to discuss potential solutions. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed in Medline to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) in lupus published during the past decade. A set of criteria was defined a priori to analyze these trials covering different aspects of steroid use in RCTs with regard to eligibility, randomization, post-randomization steroid use, analysis and reporting. RESULTS: Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Median sample size was 30, ranging from 10-71. In three trials corticosteroid application was the study intervention. Three reports did not address steroid use among study subjects at all. In seven trials steroid use was part of the eligibility criteria in some way. Of the trials that allowed concurrent steroid use, seven checked for equal distribution of baseline steroids. In some cases clinically relevant differences did not reach statistical significance as sample sizes were very small. In only one study was randomization stratified for steroid use. Instructions for post-randomization steroid use were specified in only 3 of 14 trials where steroids were not part of the intervention. In 11 RCTs concurrent steroid use was free or no information was provided. Steroid dosing during the intervention was reported as a secondary outcome measure in four trials. CONCLUSIONS: As sample sizes are often small, simple randomization is not reliable to avoid relevant between-group differences in baseline steroids. The power of statistical testing for group differences is limited for the same reason. Stratified randomization is rarely used. Free concurrent steroid use during the intervention is frequently allowed in lupus RCTs despite the risk of bias. Better data and accepted standards for a priori specified steroid regimens in RCTs are highly warranted.

[Comparison of three indices for the evaluation of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus]. / Vergleich dreier Indizes zur Erfassung der Krankheitsaktivität bei systemischem Lupus erythematodes.

Assessing disease activity in SLE is often difficult due to the multiple organ systems involved. Three recent disease activity indices (SLAM, BILAG, and SLEDAI) are being increasingly used. Retrospective investigations comparing these indices have not been performed. We compared SLAM, BILAG, and SLEDAI in a retrospective study of 52 patients with SLE. SLAM and BILAG were found to correlate well with one another and with clinicians' evaluations of disease activity (as measured by intensity of immunosuppressive treatment). They correlated less well or insignificantly with laboratory parameters (ESR, anti-ds-DNA-antibodies). If practicability is also considered, SLAM, in particular, appears to be suitable for retrospective evaluation of disease activity in SLE.