A systematic comparison of different composite measures (DAS 28, CDAI, SDAI, and Boolean approach) for determining treatment effects on low disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis

BMC Rheumatology

Research

Bernd Richter¹  Natalie McGauran²  Beate Wieseler³  Kirsten Janke³  Corinna Kiefer⁴  Dietmar Krause⁵ 

[1] Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group, Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany;Communications Unit, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany;Drug Assessment Department, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Im Mediapark 8, 50670, Cologne, Germany;Medical Biometry Department, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany;Rheumatology Practice Gladbeck, Gladbeck, Germany;

关键词: Rheumatoid arthritis;    DAS 28;    SDAI;    CDAI;    Boolean approach;    DMARDs;    Biologics;    JAK inhibitors;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s41927-022-00314-7

 received in 2022-06-02, accepted in 2022-10-07,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundSome composite measures for determining the treatment effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on remission and low disease activity (LDA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may produce misleading results if they include an acute phase reactant (APR). To inform the choice of appropriate measure, we performed a systematic comparison of treatment effects using different composite measures.MethodsWe used data generated for a systematic review of biologics in RA conducted by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and data from systematic reviews of newer biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors provided by sponsors. The studies included had been conducted up to 2020 and investigated comparisons of biologics with placebo and head-to-head comparisons of biologics. Treatment effects on LDA and remission in studies investigating biologics or JAK inhibitors in RA were compared among 4 composite measures: the disease activity score 28 (DAS 28), the simplified disease activity index (SDAI), the Boolean approach (remission only), and the clinical disease activity index (CDAI)—only the latter does not include an APR.Results49 placebo-controlled studies included 9 different biologics; 48 studies (16,233 patients) investigated LDA and 49 (16,338 patients) investigated remission. 11 active-controlled studies (5996 patients) investigated both LDA and remission and included 5 different head-to-head comparisons of biologics and 5 different comparisons (6 studies) of biologics with JAK inhibitors.Statistically significantly larger treatment effects were found for biologics or JAK inhibitors versus placebo or active control in 16% of pairwise comparisons of composite measures (27 of 168). Most of these larger effects were observed for composite measures with an APR, i.e. the DAS 28 (19 comparisons) followed by the SDAI (n = 7). Larger effects were most frequently detected in favour of interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors and to a lesser extent for JAK inhibitors versus treatments with different modes of action.ConclusionsThe use of the DAS 28 and SDAI in clinical studies may generate results favouring certain treatments based on their mode of action (e.g. IL-6 inhibitors versus other biologics). To enable unbiased comparative effectiveness research, a composite measure without an APR (i.e. the CDAI) should thus be the measure of choice.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

Fig. 6

Fig. 3