| 1. |
- Eriksson, Jonas K., et al.
(författare)
-
Biological vs Conventional Combination Treatment and Work Loss in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis A Randomized Trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: JAMA Internal Medicine. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6114 .- 2168-6106. ; 173:15, s. 1407-1414
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE The introduction of biological tumor necrosis factor inhibitors has improved the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but at a substantial cost. These drugs have been shown to lead to superior radiological outcomes compared with a combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs over 2 years. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether radiological superiority translates into better work loss outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, 2-arm, parallel, randomized, active-controlled, open-label trial. Patients with early RA (symptom duration <1 year) were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden from October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005. The study population was restricted to working-age patients (aged <63 years). INTERVENTIONS Patients who did not achieve low disease activity after 3 to 4 months of methotrexate therapy were randomized to receive additional biological treatment with infliximab or conventional combination treatment with sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Monthly sick leave and disability pension days 21 months after randomization retrieved from the nationwide Swedish Social Insurance Office register. Main analyses were by intention to treat, including all patients, and adjusted for baseline sick leave and disability pension. RESULTS Of 204 eligible patients, 105 were randomized to biological and 99 to conventional treatment. Seven patients in the biological and 4 in the conventional treatment group never received the study drug, and 72 and 52 patients, respectively, followed the study per protocol for 21 months. The baseline mean (SD) work loss was 17 (13) d/mo (median, 16 d/mo) in both groups (mean difference, 0.6 d/mo; 95% CI, -3.0 to 3.9). The mean changes in work loss at 21 months were -4.9 d/mo in the biological and -6.2 d/mo in the conventional treatment group (adjusted mean difference, 1.6 d/mo; 95% CI, -1.2 to 4.4). Including only patients receiving at least 1 dose of assigned treatment, the adjusted mean difference was 1.5 d/mo (95% CI, -1.5 to 4.4), and in per-protocol analysis the adjusted mean difference was 0.3 d/mo (95% CI, -2.8 to 3.8). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The radiological superiority of biological compared with conventional combination therapy did not translate into better work loss outcomes in patients with early RA who had experienced an insufficient response to methotrexate.
|
|
| 2. |
- Karlsson, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Addition of infliximab compared with addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine to methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year quality-of-life results of the randomised, controlled, SWEFOT trial.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 72:12, s. 1927-1933
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To compare EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients with early, methotrexate (MTX) refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA), randomised to addition of infliximab (IFX) or sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine (SSZ+HCQ). METHODS: RA-patients with symptoms <1 year were enrolled between 2002 and 2005 at 15 Swedish centres. After 3-4 months of MTX monotherapy, patients with a remaining DAS28>3.2 were randomised to addition of IFX or SSZ+HCQ and followed for 21 months. EQ-5D profiles were collected every 3 months. Between-group comparisons of utility change and accumulated QALYs were performed, using last observation carried forward (LOCF) following protocol breach. Missing data were imputed by linear interpolation or LOCF. Sensitivity analyses applying baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) or restricted to completers were conducted. RESULTS: Of 487 patients initially enrolled, 128 and 130 were randomised to IFX or SSZ+HCQ, respectively. Mean utility in the IFX and SSZ+HCQ groups increased from 0.52 (SD 0.27) and 0.55 (SD 0.27) at randomisation to 0.66 (SD 0.25) and 0.63 (SD 0.27) at 21 months (adjusted mean difference favouring IFX 0.04; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09; p=0.15). Average accumulated QALYs were 1.10 (SD 0.37) and 1.07 (SD 0.42) in the IFX and SSZ+HCQ groups, respectively (adjusted mean difference favouring IFX 0.07; 95%CI -0.01, 0.14; p=0.07). BOCF analysis showed similar results, while differences were reversed, though remained statistically non-significant among completers. Dropout rates in the IFX/SSZ+HCQ groups were 30%/43% (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing addition of IFX or SSZ+HCQ to MTX in active early RA, no statistically significant differences in utility or QALY gain could be detected over 21 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in WHO database at the Karolinska University Hospital, number CT20080004.
|
|
| 3. |
- van Vollenhoven, Ronald F., et al.
(författare)
-
Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 379:9827, s. 1712-1720
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Analysis of the Swedish Farmacotherapy (Swefot) trial at 12 months showed that the addition of an anti-tumour-necrosis-factor agent gave an improved clinical outcome compared with the addition of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis. Here we report the 2 year follow-up assessment. Methods In this randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adult patients older than 18 years with rheumatoid arthritis and a symptom duration of less than 1 year from 15 rheumatology units in Sweden between December, 2002 and December, 2006. All patients were started on methotrexate. After 3-4 months, those who failed treatment were randomly assigned (1: 1) to group A (conventional treatment; additional sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine) or group B (biological treatment; additional infliximab). Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence. We analysed clinical outcomes at months 18 and 24 by the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, and radiographs of patients' hands and feet at months 12 and 24 using the Van der Heijde modification of the Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00764725. Findings Of 493 screened individuals, we enrolled 487, of whom 258 were randomly allocated to treatment. The proportion of patients in group B who received a EULAR-defined good response was non-significantly greater than it was in group A at 18 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 38 of 130 [29%]) and at 24 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 40 of 130 [31%]; p=0.204). After 24 months, radiological disease progression was greater in patients in group A than it was in those in group B (mean 7.23 [SD 12.72] vs 4.00 [10.0]; p=0.009). We recorded three serious adverse events: an extended generalised illness in group A, an extended febrile episode in group B, and a generalised illness in group B. Interpretation Additional biological treatment is a valid option for patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment. However, improved clinical outcomes after 12 months and better radiographical results after 24 months should be weighed against the absence of a convincing clinical difference at 24 months and substantially higher costs. Therefore, for many patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment, add-on treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is an appropriate treatment option.
|
|
