Cost Utility of Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Current rheumatology reports, 2003
Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFa) plays a central role in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pathogenesis. There are currently three available anti-TNFa agents for the treatment of RA--adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab. These targeted therapies have select advantages over traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), agents that have long been the mainstay of RA treatment. Compared with conventional DMARDs, TNFa inhibitors display a rapid onset of action and have shown a significant effect in retarding the radiographic joint destruction that often characterizes RA disease progression. Although anti-TNFa drugs represent an important advance in RA treatment, postmarketing reports of serious infections, as well as other adverse events, highlight the need for continued postmarketing vigilance with the use of these agents. This review evaluates the unique attributes of the available TNFa inhibitors, focusing specifically on recent reports providing important insight into the u...
Rheumatology, 2017
Objective. Efficacy of TNF inhibitors in the treatment of RA assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not be fully comparable to routine care owing to the stringent inclusion criteria. The objective of this study was to observe the effectiveness of TNF inhibitors in real-world patients and assess the patients' potential eligibility for the RCTs. Methods. RA patients starting a TNF-inhibitor treatment between 2004 and 2014 were identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland, which is a longitudinal observational cohort study. Effectiveness was measured using the ACR and EULAR response criteria and by studying the proportion of patients reaching DAS28 remission. The patients' baseline characteristics were compared against the inclusion criteria of 27 RCTs. Results. EULAR moderate and good treatment responses at 6 months were achieved by 69 and 40% of the users of the first TNF inhibitor, respectively. ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 responses were reached by 48, 27 and 13%, respectively. DAS28 remission was reached by 47%. Only 7.644% of the patients would have been potentially eligible for the RCTs. The eligible patients had better treatment responses compared with the non-eligible patients. Different TNF inhibitors were mostly equipotent, but the usage of MTX cotherapy had a major influence on treatment response. Conclusion. Only a small proportion of patients would have been eligible for RCTs, and the efficacy of TNF inhibitors assessed in them cannot be generalized directly into Finnish routine health care.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2020
ObjectivesThis study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice.MethodsData were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, pati...
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2014
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 prima...
2010
Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to TNF antagonists (aTNFs) may switch to an alternative aTNF or start treatment from a different class of drugs, such as rituximab (RTX). It remains unclear in which clinical settings these therapeutic strategies offer most benefit. Objective: To analyse the effectiveness of RTX versus alternative aTNFs on RA disease activity in different subgroups of patients. Methods: A prospective cohort study of patients with RA who discontinued at least one aTNF and subsequently received either RTX or an alternative aTNF, nested within the Swiss RA registry (SCQM-RA) was carried out. The primary outcome, longitudinal improvement in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28), was analysed using multivariate regression models for longitudinal data and adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Of the 318 patients with RA included; 155 received RTX and 163 received an alternative aTNF. The relative benefit of RTX varied with the type of prior aTNF failure: when the motive for switching was ineffectiveness to previous aTNFs, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was significantly better with RTX than with an alternative aTNF (p = 0.03; at 6 months, 21.34 (95% CI 21.54 to 21.15) vs 20.93 (95% CI 21.28 to 20.59), respectively). When the motive for switching was other causes, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was similar for RTX and alternative aTNFs (p = 0.40). These results were not significantly modified by the number of previous aTNF failures, the type of aTNF switches, or the presence of cotreatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Conclusion: This observational study suggests that in patients with RA who have stopped a previous aTNF treatment because of ineffectiveness changing to RTX is more effective than switching to an alternative aTNF.
Safety of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapies in Arthritis Patients
Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2014
Inflammatory and rheumatic arthritis remain leading causes of disability worldwide. The arthritis therapeutic area commands the largest market for the prescription of biological and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Yet biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies conducting research and providing therapeutics in this area frequently face challenges in patient safety. The purpose of our study was to assess safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in arthritis patients. Methods: The present study systematically reviews adverse events of biologicals alone or in the presence of NSAIDs and other immunosuppressant therapeutics such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). We assessed the rheumatology literature that included clinical trials with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologicals and case reports published between 2010 and 2014. Results: Currently approved anti-TNF biologicals in arthritis include the monoclonal antibodies infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab, and the fusion protein etanercept. The most frequently-reported adverse event was infection. We grouped the adverse reactions as immune-mediated, hypersensitivity syndrome reactions including cutaneous and hepatic manifestation, neurological, hematological, and malignancy. Discussion: Most adverse events are due to the failure of host immunological control, which involves susceptibility to the drug itself, or de novo infection or reactivation of a latent bacterial or viral infection, often with a different expression of disease. Drug-induced liver injury associated with anti-TNF biologicals must be kept in mind when evaluating patients with increased liver enzymes. Conclusion: Risk assessment in individuals undergoing treatment with biologicals represents a step towards achieving a personalized medicine approach to identify those patients that will safely benefit from this therapeutic approach. Patients and physicians must be alert of anti-TNF agents as potential causes of druginduced liver injury and monitor the therapies. Personalizing therapeutic pharmacovigilance promises to optimize benefits while minimizing side effects. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page. ABBREVIATIONS ADA-anti-drug antibody AE-adverse event ADM-adalimumab ALP-alkaline phosphatase ALT-alanine aminotransferase ANA-antinuclear antibody anti-dsDNA-anti-double-stranded DNA antibody AST-aspartate aminotransferase AS-ankylosing spondylitis CNS-central nervous system CSF-cerebrospinal fluid CZP-certolizumab pegol DILI-drug-induced liver injury DMARD-disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug ETN-etanercept γ-GTP-γ-glutamyl transpeptidase GLM-golimumab HBV-hepatitis B virus IFX-infliximab ILD-interstitial lung disease JIA-juvenile idiopathic arthritis LFT-liver function test MTX-methotrexate NSAID-non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug PML-progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy RA-rheumatoid arthritis RF-rheumatoid factor TB-tuberculosis Th-T helper TNF-tumor necrosis factor