Current Rheumatology Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 348–354 | Cite as

Comparative Effectiveness of Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapies



Physicians and patients must choose between several therapeutic interventions for rheumatoid arthritis and need to compare the available therapeutic options. Although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are essential to establish the efficacy of a new treatment, they are not much help when it comes to selecting the best therapy for an individual patient. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is set to provide direct comparisons between therapeutic strategies. CER attempts to weigh the benefits against the potential harms of a particular intervention. Furthermore, CER may help identify specific patient subgroups that are more likely to benefit from a particular therapy or at increased risk of adverse events. Several study designs are available for CER, including pragmatic trials, indirect comparisons using meta-analysis, and observational studies. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each design improves the interpretation of the results. In this article, I illustrate CER principles using examples from the literature on biologic antirheumatic agents.


Rheumatoid arthritis Antirheumatic therapy DMARDs Comparative effectiveness 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Orszag PR, Ellis P: Addressing rising health care costs—a view from the Congressional Budget Office. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:1885–1887.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC: Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:970–973.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Schiff M, Keiserman M, Codding C, et al: Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2008, 67:1096–1103. This is the only large, double-blind, controlled trial that directly compares two competing biologic agents. Infliximab was restricted to 3 mg/kg. The study suggested similar efficacy of infliximab and abatacept but with a better safety profile for the latter.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Dell JR: It is the best of times; it is the worst of times: is there a way forward? A plethora of treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis, but critical trial design issues. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 56:3884–3886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donahue KE, Gartlehner G, Jonas DE, et al.: Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of disease-modifying medications for rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:124–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boers M: A call for pragmatic treatment trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2008, 4:292–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwartz D, Lellouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967, 20:637–648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al.: Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008, 337:a2390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM: Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003, 290:1624–1632.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Furst DE, Gaylis N, Bray V, et al.: Open-label, pilot protocol of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switch to infliximab after an incomplete response to etanercept: the opposite study. Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66:893–899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11. Switching anti-TNF-alpha agents in RA. Available at Accessed June 23, 2010.
  12. 12. Comparison of adalimumab and infliximab treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Available at Accessed June 23, 2010.
  13. 13.
    Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A, et al.: Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:263–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verstappen SM, Jacobs JW, van der Veen MJ, et al.: Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial). Ann Rheum Dis 2007, 66:1443–1449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, de Vries-Bouwstra JK, Allaart CF, et al.: Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:3381–3390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor PC: How do the efficacy and safety of abatacept and infliximab compare in the treatment of active RA? Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2009, 5:126–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nixon RM, Bansback N, Brennan A: Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med 2007, 26:1237–1254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al.: Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 326:472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al.: The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:683–691.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Singh JA, Christensen R, Wells GA, et al.: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview. CMAJ 2009, 181:787–796. This is an “overview of reviews” using indirect comparisons. The results suggest that anakinra is less efficacious than anti-TNF agents or rituximab and that etanercept causes fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than anakinra or monoclonal antibody anti-TNF agents.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Jonas BL, et al.: The comparative efficacy and safety of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 2006, 33:2398–2408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nixon R, Bansback N, Brennan A: The efficacy of inhibiting tumour necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 1 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparisons. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007, 46:1140–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alonso-Ruiz A, Pijoan JI, Ansuategui E, et al.: Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008, 9:52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 2006, 10:iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–229.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Finckh A, Bansback N, Marra CA, et al.: Treatment of very early rheumatoid arthritis with symptomatic therapy, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or biologic agents: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:612–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, et al.: Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006, 295:2275–2285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bongartz T, Warren FC, Mines D, et al.: Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancies: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:1177–1183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leombruno JP, Einarson TR, Keystone EC: The safety of anti-tumour necrosis factor treatments in rheumatoid arthritis: meta and exposure-adjusted pooled analyses of serious adverse events. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:1136–1145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Salliot C, Dougados M, Gossec L: Risk of serious infections during rituximab, abatacept and anakinra treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suissa S: Assessing the safety of new arthritis drugs: are we there yet? J Rheumatol 2008, 35:2295–2297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zink A, Askling J, Dixon WG, et al.: European biologicals registers: methodology, selected results and perspectives. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:1240–1246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uitz E, Fransen J, Langenegger T, et al.: Clinical quality management in rheumatoid arthritis: putting theory into practice. Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000, 39:542–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K: A brief introduction to the National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23(5 Suppl 39):S168–S171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Dixon WG, Carmona L, Finckh A, et al.: EULAR points to consider when establishing registers, and when analysing and presenting data. Ann Rheum Dis 2010 Jun 4 (Epub ahead of print). This is a good overview of important points to consider when analyzing an observational study.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Mariette X, Tubach F, Bagheri H, et al.: Lymphoma in patients treated with anti-TNF: results of the 3-year prospective French RATIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:400–408. This was a population-based observational study on the incidence of lymphoma in RA patients treated with anti-TNF agents. The results suggest a lower risk of lymphoma with use of etanercept than with the monoclonal antibody anti-TNF agents.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dixon WG, Hyrich KL, Watson KD, et al.: Drug-specific risk of tuberculosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:522–528.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Tubach F, Salmon D, Ravaud P, et al.: Risk of tuberculosis is higher with anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody therapy than with soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor therapy: the three-year prospective French Research Axed on Tolerance of Biotherapies Registry. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 60:1884–1894. This observational study and that by Dixon et al. [37] suggest a higher risk of tuberculosis with use of monoclonal antibody anti-TNF agents than with the receptor antagonist etanercept.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    • Strangfeld A, Listing J, Herzer P, et al.: Risk of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents. JAMA 2009, 301:737–744. This was a population-based observational study on the incidence of herpes zoster in RA patients treated with anti-TNF agents. The results suggest a lower risk with use of etanercept than with the monoclonal antibody anti-TNF agents.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Listing J, Strangfeld A, Kary S, et al.: Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents. Arthritis Rheum 2005, 52:3403–3412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dixon WG, Watson K, Lunt M, et al.: Rates of serious infection, including site-specific and bacterial intracellular infection, in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 54:2368–2376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Finckh A, Simard JF, Gabay C, et al.: Evidence for differential acquired drug resistance to anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65:746–752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Finckh A, Dudler J, Wermelinger F, et al.: Influence of anti-infliximab antibodies and residual infliximab concentrations on the occurrence of acquired drug resistance to infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Joint Bone Spine 2010 May 13 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Du Pan SM, Dehler S, Ciurea A, et al.: Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 61:560–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    • Harrison MJ, Dixon WG, Watson KD, et al.: Rates of new-onset psoriasis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. Ann Rheum Dis 2009, 68:209–215. This was a large observational study on the incidence of psoriasis in RA patients treated with anti-TNF agents. The results suggest that the incidence of new-onset psoriasis is higher with use of adalimumab than with etanercept or infliximab.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    • Hetland ML, Christensen IJ, Tarp U, et al.: Direct comparison of treatment responses, remission rates, and drug adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: results from eight years of surveillance of clinical practice in the nationwide Danish DANBIO Registry. Arthritis Rheum 2010, 62:22–32. This was a population-based cohort study about the clinical effectiveness of anti-TNF agents in treatment of RA. The authors found that infliximab had the lowest rates of treatment response, disease remission, and drug adherence of the three agents; adalimumab had the highest rates of treatment response, and etanercept had the longest drug survival rates.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kievit W, Adang EM, Fransen J, et al.: The effectiveness and medication costs of three anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from prospective clinical practice data. Ann Rheum Dis 2008, 67:1229–1234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kristensen LE, Saxne T, Nilsson JA, et al.: Impact of concomitant DMARD therapy on adherence to treatment with etanercept and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a six-year observational study in southern Sweden. Arthritis Res Ther 2006, 8:R174.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brocq O, Roux CH, Albert C, et al.: TNFalpha antagonist continuation rates in 442 patients with inflammatory joint disease. Joint Bone Spine 2007, 74:148–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Finckh A, Simard JF, Duryea J, et al.: The effectiveness of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in preventing progressive radiographic joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based study. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 54:54–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Finckh A, Ciurea A, Brulhart L, et al.: B cell depletion may be more effective than switching to an alternative anti-tumor necrosis factor agent in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 56:1417–1423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Finckh A, Ciurea A, Brulhart L, et al.: Which subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefits from switching to rituximab versus alternative anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents after previous failure of an anti-TNF agent? Ann Rheum Dis 2010, 69:387–393. This was an observational study comparing the effectiveness of two competing biologic agents in patient with inadequate response to anti-TNF agents. Rituximab appeared to be superior in patients with a history of resistance to anti-TNF therapy.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal MedicineUniversity Hospital of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations