While rheumatologists often focus on treatment targets, for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), control over pain and fatigue, as well as sustaining physical function and quality of life (QoL), is of primary importance. This literature review aimed at examining patients’ and physicians’ treatment aspirations, and identifying the unmet needs for patients with RA receiving ongoing treatment. Searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit literature databases for articles published from 2004 to 2014 in the English language. Published literature was screened to identify articles reporting the unmet needs in RA. We found that, despite the wide range of available treatments, RA continues to pose a substantial humanistic and economic burden on patients, and there are still unmet needs across key domains such as pain, physical function, mental function, and fatigue. These findings suggest that there is a need for further treatment advances in RA that address these domains of contemporary unmet need.

Background & Objectives: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not always accessible to all patients in accordance with international guidelines, partly owing to their high direct costs against a background of restricted healthcare budgets. This study compares the size of RA patient populations with access to reimbursed bDMARDs across 37 European countries, Russia, and Turkey, according to their treatment eligibility defined by European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations and national reimbursement criteria.Methods: The size of the RA patient population eligible for bDMARD treatment was estimated in a population model using published RA epidemiological data and clinical criteria defined by 2013 EULAR recommendations along with national reimbursement criteria defined in a survey of the 39 countries in November 2015.Results: According to EULAR recommendations, 32% of the total RA population in the European region is eligible for bDMARD treatment. However, only an average 59% of this EULAR-eligible population remains eligible after applying national reimbursement criteria (from 86% in ‘high access’ to 13% in ‘low-access’ countries).Conclusion: Access to reimbursed bDMARDs remains unequal in the European region. As biosimilars of bDMARDs are introduced, changes in reimbursement criteria may increase access to bDMARDs and reduce this inequality.

In this transglobal, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treat-to-target study, the maintenance of efficacy was compared between biologic-and biologic-free-disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination regimens after low disease activity (LDA) was achieved with biologic DMARD induction therapy. Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy received open-label etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously once weekly plus methotrexate with or without other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for 24 weeks. Patients achieving LDA [disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)<3.2] at week 24 were randomized to receive etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy or placebo-methotrexate combination therapy, with or without other csDMARDs, for 28 weeks. In the open-label period, 72% of patients achieved DAS28-ESR LDA at week 24. Patients enrolled in the double-blind period had long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline (mean duration, 8.1 years; DAS28-ESR, 6.4). In the etanercept and placebo combination groups, 44% versus 17% achieved DAS28-ESR LDA and 34 versus 13% achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 52 (p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 37 and 43%, serious adverse events in 0 and 4%, and serious infections in 0 and 2% in these groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. After induction of response with etanercept combination therapy following a treat-to-target approach in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline, the etanercept combination regimen was significantly more effective in maintaining LDA and remission than a biologic-free regimen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT01578850.

BackgroundDespite the wide array of treatments available for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), some patients continue to report unmet clinical needs. We investigated the extent of inadequate disease control in patients with RA.MethodsData were drawn from the Adelphi 2014 RA Disease-Specific Program in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists provided patient demographics, comorbidities, satisfaction with RA control and other clinical details. Patients reported their level of satisfaction and completed the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. Patients had been on their current therapy ≥3 months and had 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28) reported. Adequately controlled (DAS28 ≤3.2) and inadequately controlled (DAS28 >3.2) patient cohorts were compared using univariate tests.ResultsOf 1147 patients, 74% were women, the mean age was 52 years and the mean time since RA diagnosis was 7 years. Twenty-seven percent of patients had inadequately controlled RA, whereas 73% had adequately controlled RA. Inadequately controlled patients were more affected clinically versus adequately controlled patients; 69% vs 13% had moderate/severe RA, the current level of pain was 4.6 vs 2.3, and 67% vs 41% experienced flares, respectively (all p<0.0001). Inadequately controlled patients had higher rates of depression (16% vs 5%; p<0.0001), worse health state, greater work and activity impairment, and lower satisfaction rates among the patients and their physicians than the adequately controlled cohort.ConclusionRA was insufficiently controlled in over a quarter of patients despite their current therapy and this had a negative impact on the patients.

Biologics have mainly been assessed in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) globally. Less attention has been paid to moderately active disease, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Access to biologics and the disease features of RA patients may differ in CEE, relative to other regions. We assessed the clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of treatment from CEE patients in the multinational PRESERVE study ( NCT00565409 ). Patients with moderate RA 28-joint disease activity score ((DAS28) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) >3.2 and ≤5.1) despite methotrexate (MTX) treatment received open-label etanercept (ETN) 50 mg QW + MTX for 36 weeks. Low disease activity (DAS28 low disease activity (LDA) ≤3.2) and remission (DAS28 ESR <2.6) were assessed. PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), patient global assessment (PGA), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Medical Outcomes Study sleep questionnaire (MOS Sleep), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment for RA (WPAI-RA). Descriptive summary statistics were employed. Of the 834 enrolled patients, 302 were from CEE. At baseline, CEE patients had similar disease states versus the overall population. By week 36, LDA was achieved by 87 %, remission by 67 %, and normal HAQ-DI (≤0.5) by 53 % of patients. Mean scores (SDs) for PROs significantly improved by week 36 as follows: HAQ-DI total by -0.6 (0.5); PGA by -2.4 (2.1); EQ-5D total index by 0.2 (0.2). Pain VAS, MOS Sleep, FACIT, and WPAI-RA also showed significant improvements. In conclusion, induction therapy with ETN + MTX led to DAS28 LDA, remission, and improvements in PROs in most CEE patients with moderately active RA despite treatment with MTX. These results are similar to the overall study population in the PRESERVE trial.

ObjectiveTo describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry.MethodsData included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months.ResultsThe 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0–34.1%), 33.9–47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7–22.1% over 24 months).ConclusionAn unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors are increasingly becoming the standard of care for treating a number of inflammatory diseases. However, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors carries an inherent risk of compromising the immune system, resulting in an increased susceptibility to infections and malignancies. This increased risk of infection is of particular concern in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America where tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis are endemic. In this brief review, we examine the literature and review the impact of TNF-α inhibitors on the incidence and the reactivation of latent disease with respect to TB, hepatitis C infection, and hepatitis B infection. Our findings show that TNF-α inhibitors are generally safe, if used with caution. Patients should be screened prior to the initiation of TNF-α inhibitor treatment and given prophylactic treatment if needed. In addition, patients should be monitored during treatment with TNF-α inhibitors and after treatment has stopped to ensure that infections, if detected, are treated promptly and effectively. Our analysis is consistent with other reports and guidelines.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify factors that influence treatment adjustments and adoption of a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in European practices.MethodsCross-sectional data were drawn from the Adelphi 2014 RA Disease Specific Programme. Treatment patterns and clinical characteristics were investigated in patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) vs non-bDMARDs. For the T2T analysis, patients were subdivided into two subsets (RA diagnosis <2 or ≥2 years) and compared according to the approach used (no target = no T2T approach; pragmatic = target different from remission; and aspirational = target set as remission).ResultsData from 2,536 patients were analyzed (mean age: 52.76 years and mean time since RA diagnosis: 6.05 years). Of the 1,438 patients eligible to receive bDMARDs, 55% did not receive them. Initiation of bDMARDs in a bDMARD-naïve patient was prompted by worsening of the disease. In the RA diagnosis <2 years subset, a T2T approach was not adopted in 58% of the patients, whereas 8% and 34% adopted a pragmatic and aspirational approach, respectively. In the RA diagnosis ≥2 years subset, 45%, 19%, and 36% of the patients adopted a no target, pragmatic, and aspirational approach, respectively. Physician satisfaction with RA control was lower in the RA diagnosis <2 years subset than in the RA diagnosis ≥2 years subset (65% vs 77% satisfied, respectively; P<0.0001).ConclusionThis analysis shows that the use of bDMARDs remains suboptimal and that a T2T strategy is not universally adopted.