Evaluating guidelines on continuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment after 3 months: clinical effectiveness and costs of observed care and different alternative strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To study the adherence of rheumatologists to the Dutch guidelines for anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) treatment. The secondary objective was to evaluate alternatives to the present guidelines with regard to the percentage of responders and costs. METHODS: The response (>1.2 DAS28 decrease) in patients who started on anti-TNF-alpha treatment for the first time was evaluated at 3 and 6 months after initiation. How many patients continued or discontinued their initial anti-TNF-alpha treatment was evaluated. Possible alternative guidelines were evaluated by means of a decision tree, with regard to the expected percentage of successfully (responders) and unsuccessfully treated patients and expected costs. RESULTS: At 3 months 56% (N = 306) and 44% (N = 233) of all 539 evaluable patients were classified as responders or non-responders, respectively. Despite the guidelines, most (81%) (N = 189) of the non-responders continued treatment. 37% of the non-responders who continued anti-TNF-alpha treatment were eventually classified as responders at 6 months. Decision analytical modelling showed that with equal expected costs all alternative strategies would result in more responders than according to theoretical full adherence with the guidelines. "Continuation in case of partial response" had the best trade-off between successfully treated patients (64%) and unsuccessfully treated patients (17%). CONCLUSION: There was suboptimal adherence to the Dutch guidelines for treatment with anti-TNF-alpha for rheumatoid arthritis patients. This seemed to be justified by the fact that a delayed response up to 6 months was shown. If treatment is continued despite a non-response at 3 months, this is only recommended in patients with at least a partial response (at least 0.6 DAS28 improvement).

The tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 1b 676T>G polymorphism in relation to response to infliximab and adalimumab treatment and disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a functional polymorphism (676T>G, M196R) in the tumour necrosis factor receptor super family 1b (TNFSF1b) gene on disease activity, radiological joint damage and response to infliximab and adalimumab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two cohorts of patients with RA were genotyped for the 676T>G polymorphism (rs1061622) in exon 6 of the TNFSF1b gene by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. One cohort (n = 234) included patients from the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring register with detailed information on their response to anti-TNF therapy (infliximab and adalimumab), the other cohort comprised patients from a long-term observational early inception cohort at our centre (n = 248). RESULTS: The 676T>G polymorphism was not associated with anti-TNF response after 3 or 6 months of treatment. Linear regression analysis showed no significant difference in the progression of radiological joint damage during the first 3 and 6 years of disease between the three genotype groups (TT, TG and GG). Additionally, no difference in mean disease activity between genotypes was seen after 3 and 6 years of disease. CONCLUSION: Despite its demonstrated functionality, the 676T>G polymorphism in the TNFSF1b gene does not have a major role in either the response to anti-TNF therapy or in the disease severity or radiological progression in RA.

The effectiveness and medication costs of three anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from prospective clinical practice data.

AIM: to evaluate the effects of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab on disease activity, functional ability and quality of life and the medication costs in a naturalistic design. METHODS: All patients from the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) register starting on tumour necrosis factor (TNF)alpha-blocking agents for the first time were monitored and assessed by trained research nurses every 3 months. The primary outcome was the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) course over the 12 months follow-up, analysed by linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes were the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short-Form 36 items (SF36) scores, and medication-related total costs. RESULTS: The DAS28 and SF-36 physical component scale decreased in all three medication groups over 12 months, but the decrease was larger for adalimumab and etanercept in comparison to infliximab (p<0.001). The analyses of the HAQ and the EQ-5D scores showed the same (non-significant) trend, namely that at 12 months, the functionality and quality of life was better for adalimumab and etanercept patients. With regard to the medication costs, infliximab treatment resulted in significantly higher costs over the follow-up period than treatments with either adalimumab or etanercept. The comparison between adalimumab and etanercept showed a significant difference in the 12-month DAS28 course (p = 0.031). There were no additional indications for differences in effectiveness or costs between adalimumab and etanercept. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of the effectiveness and costs showed that adalimumab and etanercept are more or less equal and favourable compared to infliximab in the first year of treatment.

The efficacy of anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis, a comparison between randomised controlled trials and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of antagonists to tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) showed high response percentages in the groups treated with active drugs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of anti-TNF treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in RCTs and in daily clinical practice, with an emphasis on the efficacy for patients eligible and not eligible for RCTs of anti-TNF treatments. METHODS: First, randomised placebo-controlled trials written in English for etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for patients with RA were selected by a systematic review. Second, the DREAM (Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring) register with patients starting for the first time on one of the TNF-blocking agents was used. Patient characteristics, doses of medication and co-medication as well as the ACR20 response percentages were compared between RCTs and DREAM data, stratified for trial eligibility. RESULTS: In 10 of 11 comparisons, the ACR20 response percentages were lower in daily clinical practice than in the RCT active drug group, which was significant in five of 11 comparisons. Only 34-79% of DREAM patients fulfilled the selection criteria for disease activity in the several RCTs examined. DREAM patients eligible for RCTs had higher response percentages than ineligible DREAM patients. ACR20 response percentages of eligible DREAM patients were comparable with the ACR20 response percentages of the RCT active drug group in 10 of 11 comparisons. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of TNF-blocking agents in RCTs exceeded the efficacy of these drugs in clinical practice. However, in clinical practice more patients with lower disease activity were treated with TNF-blocking agents compared with those treated in RCTs. For daily practice patients who were eligible for RCTs, responses were more similar to responses reached in RCTs.