Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Improving patient-centred care for rheumatoid arthritis

Nick Bansback, Kam Shojania and Diane Lacaille
CMAJ October 04, 2016 188 (14) 999-1000; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.160051
Nick Bansback
School of Population and Public Health (Bansback); Division of Rheumatology (Shojania, Lacaille), University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Bansback, Shojania), St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver; Arthritis Research Canada (Bansback, Shojania, Lacaille), Richmond, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Nick.bansback@ubc.ca
Kam Shojania
School of Population and Public Health (Bansback); Division of Rheumatology (Shojania, Lacaille), University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Bansback, Shojania), St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver; Arthritis Research Canada (Bansback, Shojania, Lacaille), Richmond, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diane Lacaille
School of Population and Public Health (Bansback); Division of Rheumatology (Shojania, Lacaille), University of British Columbia; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (Bansback, Shojania), St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver; Arthritis Research Canada (Bansback, Shojania, Lacaille), Richmond, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Biologic drugs are well-known for both revolutionizing the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and their high costs.1 Recently, a randomized noninferiority trial, partly funded and conducted in Canada, showed that an alternative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis comprising older agents can be just as clinically effective, is associated with fewer serious adverse effects and is 20 times less expensive than treatment with a biologic.2 The Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies (RACAT) trial strengthened existing evidence on the efficacy of a combination of three drugs known as triple therapy.2–4 Greater use of triple therapy could have a large impact on patient outcomes and health care costs; however, it is infrequently offered or prescribed before a biologic drug to patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Guidelines recommend that patients with rheumatoid arthritis receive conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), beginning with methotrexate.5 More than 20 years ago, triple therapy, a combination of methotrexate and the other DMARDs, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, was found to be substantially more effective than methotrexate alone, and it costs less than $1000 per year per patient.6

In patients for whom conventional DMARDs do not work, biologics have emerged as an alternative. These drugs target either tumour necrosis factor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) or other cytokines or cells (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab and tocilizumab). Nine biologics are available for treating rheumatoid arthritis, all of which are superior to methotrexate alone and cost about $20 000 per year.1

The RACAT trial (blinded, with etanercept) is the third head-to-head trial to have found triple therapy to be noninferior to biologics in reducing disease activity, but it is the first double-blind trial to evaluate patients in whom conventional DMARDs have not worked.2 All trials found higher rates of mild adverse effects with triple therapy and higher rates of serious infections and death with biologics.2–4 Although the RACAT trial found no statistically significant difference in radiographic progression, both the Swefot (Swedish Farmacotherapy) (unblinded, with infliximab)3 and TEAR (Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis) (blinded, with etanercept)4 trials found that radiographic progression was significantly lower on average with biologics. However, the average difference was driven by a small subset of patients: in Swefot, about 25% of patients had no radiographic progression while taking either therapy; among the remainder, the difference between triple therapy versus and biologics was not clinically relevant in 90% of the patients.

Neither triple therapy nor biologics are effective in all patients. In the RACAT trial, an equal proportion of patients in each group (about 27%) switched treatments after 24 weeks owing to lack of efficacy.2 Benefit was seen in both groups with the alternate therapy — that is, nonresponders to triple therapy switching to biologics, and nonresponders to biologics switching to triple therapy.

Currently, fewer than 25% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis try triple therapy before biologics.7,8 This is not surprising, given that guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis recommend biologics only after conventional DMARD failure and do not mention triple therapy specifically.5 In Canada, most health insurance programs require DMARD combination therapy before biologics, but only one program requires triple therapy specifically. Timing may explain this: the first trial showing triple therapy’s superiority over methotrexate was published in 1996,6 shortly before biologics became available. By the time follow-up trials confirmed triple therapy’s efficacy, biologics were being marketed with the intensity of any breakthrough product.

Accumulated evidence that triple therapy and biologics can be equally clinically effective (although it is unknown which therapy will be best for a given patient) should have clear implications for policy and practice. Because biologics can cost 20 times more than triple therapy, the clinical argument for using the latter before biologics seems to make economic sense.

A potential health policy response would be to include triple therapy in provincial drug formularies and require it before biologics. However, if patients and physicians are forced to use an unwanted therapy, they may try to find a way around the formulary (e.g., by claiming medication intolerance). Furthermore, requiring triple therapy before a biologic frames the former as the means to accessing a biologic and not as a promising treatment option in and of itself.

Poor knowledge dissemination may explain why, until now, triple therapy has been perceived as less desirable than biologics. Furthermore, there may be discordance between what doctors think their patients want and what their patients really want.9 It is preferable for patients and clinicians to choose their preferred treatment together and willingly, with full knowledge of the facts. Rheumatologists are reportedly concerned about the acceptability to patients of triple therapy’s multiple daily pills and increased mild adverse effects.10 However, in a study of patients’ attitudes about combination therapy, most patients were less concerned about taking multiple pills and viewed treatment benefits as outweighing adverse effects.11

We believe that with careful shared decision-making, more patients with rheumatoid arthritis would choose triple therapy. This patient-centred approach would allow patients to compare treatment attributes and choose treatment based on personal preferences.9,12 For example, patients should know that biologics can take effect more quickly and are received weekly or monthly by injection or infusion; that triple therapy requires daily pills; that biologics carry a higher risk of serious adverse effects and possibly death and triple therapy has a higher risk of mild ones; and that biologics cost much more than triple therapy.

Greater empowerment of patients with rheumatoid arthitis to participate in treatment decisions could contribute to triple therapy being used more often. If 80% of patients chose to try triple therapy before biologics, we calculate that at least $25 million a year would be saved in Canada.8 Under a rheumatologist’s care, patients who do not improve with triple therapy could be swiftly switched to a biologic. Patients are recognizing their right to shared decision-making; let’s promote this approach for rheumatoid arthritis.

Key points
  • Recent studies have found that triple therapy — methotrexate, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine — is as effective as biologics for treating rheumatoid arthritis and has fewer serious adverse effects.

  • Currently, only one of four patients trials triple therapy before using a biologic.

  • Because triple therapy costs substantially less than a biologic, a policy to increase the use of triple therapy is supported by both clinical and economic arguments.

  • A patient-centred approach, through which patients are informed of the options and offered the choice between triple therapy and a biologic, is key.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Stephanie Harvard for her editorial assistance. Nick Bansback is a CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) New Investigator. Diane Lacaille holds the Mary Pack Arthritis Chair in rheumatology research from The Arthritis Society of Canada and the University of British Columbia.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Kam Shojania has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Janssen, UCB and Roche, and grants paid to his institution from UCB, Pfizer, Roche and Hospira. No other competing interests were declared.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Nick Bansback conceived this manuscript. Nick Bansback, Diane Lacaille and Kam Shojania all contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Each authors approved the final version and agrees to act as guarantor for the work.

  • Funding: The Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology, a granting organization through the Canadian Rheumatology Association, supported work related to this paper.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Christensen R,
    3. Wells GA,
    4. et al
    . A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview. CMAJ 2009;181:787–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. O’Dell JR,
    2. Mikuls TR,
    3. Taylor TH,
    4. et al
    . Therapies for active rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure. N Engl J Med 2013;369:307–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. van Vollenhoven RF,
    2. Geborek P,
    3. Forslind K,
    4. et al
    .; Swefot study group. Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial. Lancet 2012;379:1712–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Moreland LW,
    2. O’Dell JR,
    3. Paulus HE,
    4. et al
    . A randomized comparative effectiveness study of oral triple therapy versus etanercept plus methotrexate in early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis: the treatment of early aggressive rheumatoid arthritis trial. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2824–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bykerk VP,
    2. Akhavan P,
    3. Hazlewood GS,
    4. et al
    .; Canadian Rheumatology Association. Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1559–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. O’Dell JR,
    2. Haire CE,
    3. Erikson N,
    4. et al
    . Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with methotrexate alone, sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of all three medications. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1287–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ng B,
    2. Chu A,
    3. Khan MM
    . A retrospective cohort study: 10-year trend of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biological agents use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002468.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Bansback N,
    2. Lacaille DV,
    3. Guh D,
    4. et al
    . Economic implications for policies regarding triple therapy use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:S502.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Mulley AG,
    2. Trimble C,
    3. Elwyn G
    . Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter. BMJ 2012;345:e6572.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Fraenkel L,
    2. Miller AS,
    3. Clayton K,
    4. et al
    . When patients write the guidelines: patient panel recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016;68:26–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. van Tuyl LH,
    2. Plass AM,
    3. Lems WF,
    4. et al
    . Discordant perspectives of rheumatologists and patients on COBRA combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47:1571–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Barry MJ,
    2. Edgman-Levitan S
    . Shared decision making — pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (14)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 14
4 Oct 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving patient-centred care for rheumatoid arthritis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Improving patient-centred care for rheumatoid arthritis
Nick Bansback, Kam Shojania, Diane Lacaille
CMAJ Oct 2016, 188 (14) 999-1000; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.160051

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Improving patient-centred care for rheumatoid arthritis
Nick Bansback, Kam Shojania, Diane Lacaille
CMAJ Oct 2016, 188 (14) 999-1000; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.160051
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracist practice for pediatric surgeons in Canada
  • Understanding and addressing Islamophobia through trauma-informed care
  • Dismantling gendered Islamophobia in medicine
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: musculoskeletal & joint
    • Rheumatology

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire