IntroductionFor patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders.ResultsOf 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros.ConclusionsAll three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0630-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesTo study the number of patients that taper or discontinue concomitant methotrexate (MTX) in daily practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and to analyse the effects of that adaption on disease activity and drug survival.MethodsData were collected from the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) registry. Patients who started their first TNFi were included in the study. Treatment effectiveness after MTX tapering or discontinuation was analysed using Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28). Drug survival of the TNFi was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard model with a time-dependent covariate.ResultsIn 458 patients (34%), MTX was tapered, 126 patients (10%) discontinued MTX and 747 patients (56%) continued MTX at the same dose. On average, DAS28 improved after tapering MTX (−0.40, −0.45) and after stopping MTX (−0.28, −0.12) at 6 and 12 months. In the taper group, 21% of the patients relapsed (DAS28 increase >0.6), and in the discontinuation group this was 21% and 24% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Patients who taper and discontinue MTX have a similar DAS28 score over time as patients who continue MTX. Moreover, there was no influence of tapering or discontinuation of MTX on long-term drug survival of TNFi.ConclusionsIn daily practice, tapering or discontinuation of concomitant MTX in patients with RA treated with TNFi frequently occurs and it does not seem to influence the average DAS28 over time or the long-term TNFi drug survival. It appears that in daily clinical practice the correct patients are selected to taper or discontinue MTX.

No abstract

Preferably, TNFi should be prescribed together with MTX. If this is not possible, we advise the use of other csDMARD.