Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 831603, 17 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/831603
Review Article

Treatment Comparison in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Head-to-Head Trials and Innovative Study Designs

1Department of Rheumatology, Gaetano Pini Institute Via Gaetano Pini 9, 20121 Milano, Italy
2Division of Rheumatology, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, Italy

Received 22 January 2014; Accepted 15 March 2014; Published 16 April 2014

Academic Editor: Lorenzo Cavagna

Copyright © 2014 Ennio Giulio Favalli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. R. L. Black, W. M. O'Brien, E. J. Vanscott, R. Auerbach, A. Z. Eisen, and J. J. Bunim, “Methotrexate therapy in psoriatic arthritis, double-blind study on 21 patients,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 189, pp. 743–747, 1964. View at Google Scholar
  2. M. E. Weinblatt, J. S. Coblyn, D. A. Fox et al., “Efficacy of low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 312, no. 13, pp. 818–822, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. H. J. Williams, R. F. Willkens, C. O. Samuelson Jr. et al., “Comparison of low-dose oral pulse methotrexate and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 721–730, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Feldmann, F. M. Brennan, and R. N. Maini, “Role of cytokines in rheumatoid arthritis,” Annual Review of Immunology, vol. 14, pp. 397–440, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. P. S. Linsley and S. G. Nadler, “The clinical utility of inhibiting CD28-mediated costimulation,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 307–321, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. R. Caporali, S. Bugatti, L. Cavagna, M. Antivalle, and P. Sarzi-Puttini, “Modulating the co-stimulatory signal for T cell activation in rheumatoid arthritis: could it be the first step of the treatment?” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 49–53, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. S. Bugatti, V. Codullo, R. Caporali, and C. Montecucco, “B cells in rheumatoid arthritis,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 137–142, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. T. Dörner, A. Radbruch, and G. R. Burmester, “B-cell-directed therapies for autoimmune disease,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 433–441, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. E. Fonseca, M. J. Santos, H. Canhão, and E. Choy, “Interleukin-6 as a key player in systemic inflammation and joint destruction,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 538–542, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. T. Tanaka, M. Narazaki, and T. Kishimoto, “Therapeutic targeting of the interleukin-6 receptor,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 52, pp. 199–219, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. FDA Guidance for Industry, Clinical Development Programs for Drugs, Devices, and Biological Products for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis, http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/1208fnl.htm.
  12. European Medicines Agency—scientific guidelines, http://www.emea.europa.eu/htms/human/humanguidelines/efficacy.htm.
  13. R. Westhovens, M. Robles, A. C. Ximenes et al., “Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 1870–1877, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. F. C. Breedveld, M. H. Weisman, A. F. Kavanaugh et al., “The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 26–37, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. Kavanaugh, R. M. Fleischmann, P. Emery et al., “Clinical, functional and radiographic consequences of achieving stable low disease activity and remission with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone in early rheumatoid arthritis: 26-week results from the randomised, controlled OPTIMA study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 64–71, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. M. Bathon, R. W. Martin, R. M. Fleischmann et al., “A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 343, no. 22, pp. 1586–1593, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. P. Emery, F. C. Breedveld, S. Hall et al., “Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial,” The Lancet, vol. 372, no. 9636, pp. 375–382, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. Emery, R. M. Fleischmann, L. W. Moreland et al., “Golimumab, a human anti-tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, injected subcutaneously every four weeks in methotrexate-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: twenty-four-week results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of golimumab before methotrexate as first-line therapy for early-onset rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 2272–2283, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. E. W. St.Clair, D. M. F. M. van der Heijde, J. S. Smolen et al., “Combination of infliximab and methotrexate therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 3432–3443, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. P. P. Tak, W. F. Rigby, A. Rubbert-Roth et al., “Inhibition of joint damage and improved clinical outcomes with rituximab plus methotrexate in early active rheumatoid arthritis: the IMAGE trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 39–46, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. M. Kremer, H. K. Genant, L. W. Moreland et al., “Effects of abatacept in patients with methotrexate-resistant active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 144, no. 12, pp. 865–876, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. Schiff, M. Keiserman, C. Codding et al., “Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1096–1103, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. E. Weinblatt, E. C. Keystone, D. E. Furst et al., “Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients taking concomitant methotrexate: the ARMADA trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. E. C. Keystone, A. F. Kavanaugh, J. T. Sharp et al., “Radiographic, clinical, and functional outcomes of treatment with adalimumab (a human anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving concomitant methotrexate therapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1400–1411, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. E. Keystone, D. van der Heijde, D. Mason Jr. et al., “Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is significantly more effective than placebo plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a fifty-two-week, phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 3319–3329, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. J. Smolen, R. B. Landewé, P. Mease et al., “Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: the RAPID 2 study. A randomised controlled trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 797–804, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. R. Fleischmann, J. Vencovsky, R. F. van Vollenhoven et al., “Efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol monotherapy every 4 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing previous disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy: the FAST4WARD study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 805–811, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. E. Weinblatt, J. M. Kremer, A. D. Bankhurst et al., “A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor:Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 340, no. 4, pp. 253–259, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. L. Klareskog, D. van der Heijde, J. P. de Jager et al., “Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 363, no. 9410, pp. 675–681, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. P. L. C. M. van Riel, A. J. Taggart, J. Sany et al., “Efficacy and safely of combination etanercept and methotrexate versus etanercept alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ADORE study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 1478–1483, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. E. C. Keystone, M. C. Genovese, L. Klareskog et al., “Golimumab, a human antibody to tumour necrosis factor {alpha} given by monthly subcutaneous injections, in active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy: the GO-FORWARD Study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 789–796, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. Maini, E. W. St Clair, F. Breedveld et al., “Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group,” The Lancet, vol. 354, no. 9194, pp. 1932–1939, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. Emery, R. Fleischmann, A. Filipowicz-Sosnowska et al., “The efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment: results of a phase IIb randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1390–1400, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. P. Emery, A. Deodhar, W. F. Rigby et al., “Efficacy and safety of different doses and retreatment of rituximab: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in patients who are biological naive with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (Study Evaluating Rituximab's Efficacy in MTX iNadequate rEsponders (SERENE)),” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 1629–1635, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. A. Rubbert-Roth, P. P. Tak, C. Zerbini et al., “Efficacy and safety of various repeat treatment dosing regimens of rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of a Phase III randomized study (MIRROR),” Rheumatology, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1683–1693, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. S. Smolen, A. Beaulieu, A. Rubbert-Roth et al., “Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial,” The Lancet, vol. 371, no. 9617, pp. 987–997, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. J. M. Kremer, R. Blanco, M. Brzosko et al., “Tocilizumab inhibits structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate: results from the double-blind treatment phase of a randomized placebo-controlled trial of tocilizumab safety and prevention of structural joint damage at one year,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 609–621, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. C. Genovese, J. D. McKay, E. L. Nasonov et al., “Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 2968–2980, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. N. Nishimoto, K. Yoshizaki, N. Miyasaka et al., “Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1761–1769, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. Y. Yazici, J. R. Curtis, A. Ince et al., “Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the ROSE study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 198–205, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. M. C. Genovese, J.-C. Becker, M. Schiff et al., “Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumor necrosis factor α inhibition,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 11, pp. 1114–1123, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. J. S. Smolen, J. Kay, M. K. Doyle et al., “Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis after treatment with tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (GO-AFTER study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial,” The Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9685, pp. 210–221, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. D. E. Furst, N. Gaylis, V. Bray et al., “Open-label, pilot protocol of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switch to infliximab after an incomplete response to etanercept: the opposite study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 893–899, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. S. B. Cohen, P. Emery, M. W. Greenwald et al., “Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating primary efficacy and safety at twenty-four weeks,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2793–2806, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. P. Emery, E. Keystone, H. P. Tony, A. Cantagrel, R. van Vollenhoven, and A. Sanchez, “IL-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab improves treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor biologicals: results from a 24-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 2, p. 296, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. A. Marchesoni, E. Zaccara, R. Gorla et al., “TNF-α antagonist survival rate in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed under conditions of standard clinical practice,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1173, pp. 837–846, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. F. B. Pallavicini, R. Caporali, P. Sarzi-Puttini et al., “Tumour necrosis factor antagonist therapy and cancer development: analysis of the LORHEN registry,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 175–180, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. R. Caporali, F. Bobbio-Pallavicini, F. Atzeni et al., “Safety of tumor necrosis factor α blockers in hepatitis B virus occult carriers (hepatitis B surface antigen negative/anti-hepatitis B core antigen positive) with rheumatic diseases,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 749–754, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. F. Atzeni, P. Sarzi-Puttini, A. Mutti, S. Bugatti, L. Cavagna, and R. Caporali, “Long-term safety of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1115–1117, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  50. R. Caporali, M. Caprioli, F. Bobbio-Pallavicini, S. Bugatti, and C. Montecucco, “Long term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 591–594, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. M. Y. Md Yusof and P. Emery, “Targeting interleukin-6 in rheumatoid arthritis,” Drugs, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 341–356, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. J. A. Singh, D. E. Furst, A. Bharat et al., “2012 update of the 2008 American college of rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 635–639, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. J. S. Smolen, R. Landewé, F. C. Breedveld et al., “EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 73, pp. 492–509, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. R. Caporali, F. Conti, S. Alivernini et al., “Recommendations for the use of biologic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: update from the Italian Society for Rheumatology I. Efficacy,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 29, no. 3, p. S7, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. R. Caporali, F. B. Pallavicini, M. Filippini et al., “Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with anti-TNF-alpha agents: a reappraisal,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 274–280, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. C. Sorenson, H. Naci, J. Cylus, and E. Mossialos, “Evidence of comparative efficacy should have a formal role in European drug approvals,” British Medical Journal, vol. 343, Article ID d4849, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. H. C. Sox and S. N. Goodman, “The methods of comparative effectiveness research,” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 33, pp. 425–445, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. A. M. Glenny, D. G. Altman, F. Song et al., “Indirect comparisons of competing interventions,” Health Technology Assessment, vol. 9, no. 26, pp. 1–148, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. D. M. Caldwell, A. E. Ades, and J. P. T. Higgins, “Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence,” British Medical Journal, vol. 331, no. 7521, pp. 897–900, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. H. C. Bucher, G. H. Guyatt, L. E. Griffith, and S. D. Walter, “The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 683–691, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. A. Cipriani, J. P. Higgins, J. R. Geddes, and G. Salanti, “Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis,” ,Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 159, no. 2, pp. 130–137, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  62. J. P. Jansen, B. Crawford, G. Bergman, and W. Stam, “Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons,” Value in Health, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 956–964, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. R. E. Kass, “Statistical inference: the big picture,” Statistical Science, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. F. Song, T. Xiong, S. Parekh-Bhurke et al., “Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study,” British Medical Journal, vol. 343, Article ID d4909, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. J. A. Singh and D. R. Cameron, “Summary of AHRQ's comparative effectiveness review of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults—an update,” Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. S1–S18, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  66. Y. Yazici, “Long-term safety of Methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. S65–S67, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. J. A. Singh, R. Christensen, G. A. Wells et al., “A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane overview,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 181, no. 11, pp. 787–796, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. S. Schmitz, R. Adams, C. D. Walsh, M. Barry, and O. FitzGerald, “A mixed treatment comparison of the efficacy of anti-TNF agents in rheumatoid arthritis for methotrexate non-responders demonstrates differences between treatments: a Bayesian approach,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 225–230, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. K. Thorlund, E. Druyts, J. A. Aviña-Zubieta, P. Wu, and E. J. Mills, “Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 1524–1535, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  70. E. G. Favalli, F. Pregnolato, M. Biggioggero, and P. L. Meroni, “The comparison of effects of biologic agents on rheumatoid arthritis damage progression is biased by period of enrolment: data from a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  71. E. O. Lillie, B. Patay, J. Diamant, B. Issell, E. J. Topol, and N. J. Schork, “The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine?” Personalized Medicine, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 161–173, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. D. R. Zucker, C. H. Schmid, M. W. McIntosh, R. B. D'Agostino, H. P. Selker, and J. Lau, “Combining single patient (N-of-1) trials to estimate population treatment effects and to evaluate individual patient responses to treatment,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 401–410, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. M. J. Yelland, C. J. Nikles, N. McNairn, C. B. del Mar, P. J. Schluter, and R. M. Brown, “Celecoxib compared with sustained-release paracetamol for osteoarthritis: a series of n-of-1 trials,” Rheumatology, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 135–140, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. M. K. Campbell, G. Piaggio, D. R. Elbourne, and D. G. Altman, “Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials,” British Medical Journal, vol. 345, Article ID e5661, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  75. J. Fransen, H. B. Moens, I. Speyer, and P. L. C. M. van Riel, “Effectiveness of systematic monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity in daily practice: a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 1294–1298, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. D. Schwartz and J. Lellouch, “Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes of therapeutical trials,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 499–505, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. K. E. Thorpe, M. Zwarenstein, A. D. Oxman et al., “A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 464–475, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. Y. P. M. Goekoop-Ruiterman, J. K. de Vries-Bouwstra, C. F. Allaart et al., “Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the best study): a randomized, controlled trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 3381–3390, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. N. B. Klarenbeek, M. Güler-Yüksel, S. M. van der Kooij et al., “The impact of four dynamic, goal-steered treatment strategies on the 5-year outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the BeSt study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1039–1046, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. J. A. Kairalla, C. S. Coffey, M. A. Thomann, and K. E. Muller, “Adaptive trial designs: a review of barriers and opportunities,” Trials, vol. 13, Article ID 145, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  81. S. C. Chow, “Adaptive clinical trial design,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 65, pp. 405–415, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  82. M. Vandemeulebroecke, “Group sequential and adaptive designs—a review of basic concepts and points of discussion,” Biometrical Journal, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 541–557, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. I. J. Dahabreh, T. Terasawa, P. J. Castaldi, and T. A. Trikalinos, “Systematic review: anti-epidermal growth factor receptor treatment effect modification by KRAS mutations in advanced colorectal cancer,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. B. Freidlin, L. M. McShane, and E. L. Korn, “Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 152–160, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. R. Dienstmann, J. Rodon, and J. Tabernero, “Biomarker-driven patient selection for early clinical trials,” Current Opinion in Oncology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 305–312, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  86. A. Willemze, L. A. Trouw, R. E. M. Toes, and T. W. J. Huizinga, “The influence of ACPA status and characteristics on the course of RA,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 144–152, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. J. van Aken, L. Heimans, H. Gillet-van Dongen et al., “Five-year outcomes of probable rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate or placebo during the first year (the PROMPT study),” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 396–400, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  88. I. Olivieri, P. Sarzi-Puttini, S. Bugatti, F. Atzeni, S. d'Angelo, and R. Caporali, “Early treatment in early undifferentiated arthritis,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 589–592, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. S. Bugatti, A. Manzo, R. Caporali, and C. Montecucco, “Assessment of synovitis to predict bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis,” Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 235–244, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  90. S. Bugatti, A. Manzo, M. Bombardieri et al., “Synovial tissue heterogeneity and peripheral blood biomarkers,” Current Rheumatology Reports, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 440–448, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. G. Reynisdottir, R. Karimi, V. Joshua et al., “Structural lung changes and local anti-citrulline immunity are early features of anti citrullinated-proteins antibodies positive rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  92. A. Manzo, R. Caporali, B. Vitolo et al., “Subclinical remodelling of draining lymph node structure in early and established rheumatoid arthritis assessed by power Doppler ultrasonography,” Rheumatology, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 1395–1400, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. S. Bugatti, A. Manzo, R. Caporali, and C. Montecucco, “Inflammatory lesions in the bone marrow of rheumatoid arthritis patients: a morphological perspective,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 14, no. 6, article 229, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  94. S. Bugatti, A. Manzo, F. Benaglio et al., “Serum levels of CXCL13 are associated with ultrasonographic synovitis and predict power Doppler persistence in early rheumatoid arthritis treated with non-biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 14, no. 1, article R34, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. A. S. Siebuhr, A. C. Bay-Jensen, D. J. Leeming et al., “Serological identification of fast progressors of structural damage with rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 4, article R86, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  96. F. Ponchel, V. Goëb, R. Parmar et al., “An immunological biomarker to predict MTX response in early RA,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 235–244, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  97. M. Meyer, J. Sellam, S. Fellahi et al., “Serum level of adiponectin is a surrogate independent biomarker of radiographic disease progression in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the ESPOIR cohort,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 15, no. 6, article R210, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  98. C. Scirè, O. Epis, V. Codullo et al., “Immunohistological assessment of the synovial tissue in small joints in rheumatoid arthritis: validation of a minimally invasive ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy procedure,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 9, no. 5, article R101, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. J. J. Haringman, D. M. Gerlag, A. H. Zwinderman et al., “Synovial tissue macrophages: a sensitive biomarker for response to treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 834–838, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. S. Bugatti, A. Manzo, B. Vitolo et al., “High expression levels of the B cell chemoattractant CXCL13 in rheumatoid synovium are a marker of severe disease,” Rheumatology, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  101. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, “Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” 2003, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003439.pdf.
  102. C. Estellat and P. Ravaud, “Lack of head-to-head trials and fair control arms: randomized controlled trials of biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 172, no. 3, pp. 237–244, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. J. S. Smolen, M. Boers, E. C. Abadie et al., “Recommendations for an update of 2003 European regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of RA,” Current Medical Research and Opinion, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 315–325, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. D. L. Streiner, “Alternatives to placebo-controlled trials,” Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. S37–S41, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. E. Lesaffre, “Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials,” Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 150–154, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. M. E. Weinblatt, H. Kaplan, B. F. Germain et al., “Low-dose methotrexate compared with auranofin in adult rheumatoid arthritis. A thirty-six-week, double-blind trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 330–338, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. H. J. Williams, J. R. Ward, J. C. Reading et al., “Comparison of auranofin, methotrexate, and the combination of both in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled clinical trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 259–269, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. M. E. C. Jeurissen, A. M. T. Boerbooms, L. B. A. van de Putte et al., “Methotrexate versus azathioprine in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a forty-eight-week randomized, double-blind trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 961–972, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. M. E. C. Jeurissen, A. M. T. Boerbooms, L. B. A. van de Putte, W. H. Doesburg, and A. M. Lemmens, “Influence of methotrexate and azathioprine on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind study,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 114, no. 12, pp. 999–1004, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. R. F. Willkens, J. T. Sharp, D. Stablein, C. Marks, and R. Wortmann, “Comparison of azathioprine, methotrexate, and the combination of the two in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a forty-eight-week controlled clinical trial with radiologic outcome assessment,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1799–1806, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. A. A. Drosos, P. V. Voulgari, I. A. Papadopoulos, E. N. Politi, P. E. Georgiou, and A. K. Zikou, “Cyclosporine A in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective, randomized 24-month study,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 695–701, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. G. F. Ferraccioli, E. Gremese, P. Tomietto, G. Favret, R. Damato, and E. Di Poi, “Analysis of improvements, full responses, remission and toxicity in rheumatoid patients treated with step-up combination therapy (methotrexate, cyclosporin A, sulphasalazine) or monotherapy for three years,” Rheumatology, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 892–898, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. J. Hamilton, I. B. McInnes, E. A. Thomson et al., “Comparative study of intramuscular gold and methotrexate in a rheumatoid arthritis population from a socially deprived area,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 566–572, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. R. Rau, G. Herborn, H. Menninger, and O. Sangha, “Radiographic outcome after three years of patients with early erosive rheumatoid arthritis treated with intramuscular methotrexate or parenteral gold. Extension of a one-year double-blind study in 174 patients,” Rheumatology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 196–204, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. J. S. Smolen, J. R. Kalden, D. L. Scott et al., “Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial,” The Lancet, vol. 353, no. 9149, pp. 259–266, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. V. Strand, S. Cohen, M. Schiff et al., “Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate,” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 159, no. 21, pp. 2542–2550, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. S. B. Cohen, G. W. Cannon, M. H. Schiff et al., “Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate. Utilization of Leflunomide in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial Investigator Group,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1984–1992, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  118. V. Strand, D. L. Scott, P. Emery et al., “Physical function and health related quality of life: analysis of 2-year data from randomized, controlled studies of leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 590–601, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. P. Emery, F. C. Breedveld, E. M. Lemmel et al., “A comparison of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide and methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” Rheumatology, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 655–665, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. C. Bao, S. Chen, Y. Gu et al., “Leflunomide, a new disease-modifying drug for treating active rheumatoid arthritis in methotrexate-controlled phase II clinical trial,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 1228–1234, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. C. J. Haagsma, P. L. C. M. van Riel, A. J. L. de Jong, and L. B. A. van de Putte, “Combination of sulphasalazine and methotrexate versus the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, 52 week clinical trial,” British Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1082–1088, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. M. Dougados, B. Combe, A. Cantagrel et al., “Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, controlled, double blind 52 week clinical trial of sulphasalazine and methotrexate compared with the single components,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 220–225, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. H. A. Capell, R. Madhok, D. R. Porter et al., “Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 235–241, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. M. C. Genovese, J. M. Bathon, R. W. Martin et al., “Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1443–1450, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. G. Jones, A. Sebba, J. Gu et al., “Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 88–96, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  126. R. F. van Vollenhoven, R. M. Fleischmann, S. B. Cohen et al., “Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 367, no. 6, pp. 508–519, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  127. C. Gabay, P. Emery, R. F. van Vollenhoven et al., “Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 381, no. 9877, pp. 1541–1550, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  128. M. E. Weinblatt, M. H. Schiff, R. Valente et al., “Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: Findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 28–38, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  129. M. H. Schiff, M. E. Weinblatt, R. Valente et al., “Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 73, no. 1, 2014. View at Google Scholar