Combination conventional DMARDs compared to biologicals

What is the evidence?

Manpreet K. Sethi, James Robert O'Dell

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dramatic improvement seen in the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis has been driven by higher expectations, led by newer drugs and more intensive use of the older drugs. Although methotrexate has retained its place as the first-line agent, there has been great interest in comparing biologicals to conventional Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) over the past few years with the updated guidelines from both the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism. We have tried to critically summarize the findings of some landmark trials that compare these two approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, The Swedish Pharmacotherapy study and Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies are landmark trials that were designed to compare strategies using biologicals vs. conventional DMARDs. We will review the safety and efficacy data from these three trials here and also briefly the important cost differential. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate should be the first-line therapy for most rheumatoid arthritis patients and will produce the desired results in greater than one-third of the patients. When methotrexate is not adequate, triple DMARD therapy should be added which will result in control of approximately another one-third of the patients. Ultimately, and usually before 1 year of disease, the remainder of patients will require biological therapies usually added to conventional DMARDs. There is no evidence that this step-up approach results in any long-term disadvantage and good evidence that it results in substantial cost savings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)183-188
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 6 2015

Fingerprint

Antirheumatic Agents
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Methotrexate
Drug Therapy
Biological Therapy
Cost Savings
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Therapeutics
Guidelines
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • biologics
  • combination therapy
  • conventional
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • triple therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology

Cite this

Combination conventional DMARDs compared to biologicals : What is the evidence? / Sethi, Manpreet K.; O'Dell, James Robert.

In: Current Opinion in Rheumatology, Vol. 27, No. 2, 06.03.2015, p. 183-188.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{a1efd9e0bc494c90b07b9123fed51958,
title = "Combination conventional DMARDs compared to biologicals: What is the evidence?",
abstract = "PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dramatic improvement seen in the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis has been driven by higher expectations, led by newer drugs and more intensive use of the older drugs. Although methotrexate has retained its place as the first-line agent, there has been great interest in comparing biologicals to conventional Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) over the past few years with the updated guidelines from both the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism. We have tried to critically summarize the findings of some landmark trials that compare these two approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, The Swedish Pharmacotherapy study and Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies are landmark trials that were designed to compare strategies using biologicals vs. conventional DMARDs. We will review the safety and efficacy data from these three trials here and also briefly the important cost differential. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate should be the first-line therapy for most rheumatoid arthritis patients and will produce the desired results in greater than one-third of the patients. When methotrexate is not adequate, triple DMARD therapy should be added which will result in control of approximately another one-third of the patients. Ultimately, and usually before 1 year of disease, the remainder of patients will require biological therapies usually added to conventional DMARDs. There is no evidence that this step-up approach results in any long-term disadvantage and good evidence that it results in substantial cost savings.",
keywords = "biologics, combination therapy, conventional, rheumatoid arthritis, triple therapy",
author = "Sethi, {Manpreet K.} and O'Dell, {James Robert}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1097/BOR.0000000000000153",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "183--188",
journal = "Current Opinion in Rheumatology",
issn = "1040-8711",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Combination conventional DMARDs compared to biologicals

T2 - What is the evidence?

AU - Sethi, Manpreet K.

AU - O'Dell, James Robert

PY - 2015/3/6

Y1 - 2015/3/6

N2 - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dramatic improvement seen in the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis has been driven by higher expectations, led by newer drugs and more intensive use of the older drugs. Although methotrexate has retained its place as the first-line agent, there has been great interest in comparing biologicals to conventional Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) over the past few years with the updated guidelines from both the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism. We have tried to critically summarize the findings of some landmark trials that compare these two approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, The Swedish Pharmacotherapy study and Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies are landmark trials that were designed to compare strategies using biologicals vs. conventional DMARDs. We will review the safety and efficacy data from these three trials here and also briefly the important cost differential. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate should be the first-line therapy for most rheumatoid arthritis patients and will produce the desired results in greater than one-third of the patients. When methotrexate is not adequate, triple DMARD therapy should be added which will result in control of approximately another one-third of the patients. Ultimately, and usually before 1 year of disease, the remainder of patients will require biological therapies usually added to conventional DMARDs. There is no evidence that this step-up approach results in any long-term disadvantage and good evidence that it results in substantial cost savings.

AB - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dramatic improvement seen in the prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis has been driven by higher expectations, led by newer drugs and more intensive use of the older drugs. Although methotrexate has retained its place as the first-line agent, there has been great interest in comparing biologicals to conventional Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) over the past few years with the updated guidelines from both the American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism. We have tried to critically summarize the findings of some landmark trials that compare these two approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Treatment of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis, The Swedish Pharmacotherapy study and Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies are landmark trials that were designed to compare strategies using biologicals vs. conventional DMARDs. We will review the safety and efficacy data from these three trials here and also briefly the important cost differential. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate should be the first-line therapy for most rheumatoid arthritis patients and will produce the desired results in greater than one-third of the patients. When methotrexate is not adequate, triple DMARD therapy should be added which will result in control of approximately another one-third of the patients. Ultimately, and usually before 1 year of disease, the remainder of patients will require biological therapies usually added to conventional DMARDs. There is no evidence that this step-up approach results in any long-term disadvantage and good evidence that it results in substantial cost savings.

KW - biologics

KW - combination therapy

KW - conventional

KW - rheumatoid arthritis

KW - triple therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922397097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922397097&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000153

DO - 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000153

M3 - Review article

VL - 27

SP - 183

EP - 188

JO - Current Opinion in Rheumatology

JF - Current Opinion in Rheumatology

SN - 1040-8711

IS - 2

ER -