The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response.

METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira ®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel ®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade ®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia ®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi ®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor ® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care.

LIMITATIONS: There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales.

FUTURE WORK: Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

1366-5278
1-248
Tikhonova, Irina
577ccbcc-6643-4190-bb6d-19e13b44bcd1
Yang, Huiqin
6744f782-7a99-436d-a213-cb932561e3e7
Bello, Segun
f4f69c78-f3f6-401a-adf2-d72a9a648137
Salmon, Andrew
d746494b-14a2-4191-adf0-a49f10504727
Robinson, Sophie
0b4543ed-6488-4756-8c86-fb74136c8f9f
Rezaei Hemami, Mohsen
eac2dd29-6a38-4b73-90a2-b7120aaf717d
Dodman, Sophie
0b5c954e-a8b9-4afd-b525-9541e40e57c1
Kharechko, Andriy
ee55bca8-6024-4628-a92d-aebb3be382ca
Haigh, Richard
20697094-2666-4f49-8deb-7455e7bdf877
Jani, Meghna
cb236cda-9d7a-4a78-a79f-fdf9b7d77022
McDonald, Timothy
60db1515-0a47-482e-a7b6-df9d88bf1b16
Hoyle, Martin
55cb838f-bb5f-46c4-8edb-d7d41d55f9dc
Tikhonova, Irina
577ccbcc-6643-4190-bb6d-19e13b44bcd1
Yang, Huiqin
6744f782-7a99-436d-a213-cb932561e3e7
Bello, Segun
f4f69c78-f3f6-401a-adf2-d72a9a648137
Salmon, Andrew
d746494b-14a2-4191-adf0-a49f10504727
Robinson, Sophie
0b4543ed-6488-4756-8c86-fb74136c8f9f
Rezaei Hemami, Mohsen
eac2dd29-6a38-4b73-90a2-b7120aaf717d
Dodman, Sophie
0b5c954e-a8b9-4afd-b525-9541e40e57c1
Kharechko, Andriy
ee55bca8-6024-4628-a92d-aebb3be382ca
Haigh, Richard
20697094-2666-4f49-8deb-7455e7bdf877
Jani, Meghna
cb236cda-9d7a-4a78-a79f-fdf9b7d77022
McDonald, Timothy
60db1515-0a47-482e-a7b6-df9d88bf1b16
Hoyle, Martin
55cb838f-bb5f-46c4-8edb-d7d41d55f9dc

Tikhonova, Irina, Yang, Huiqin, Bello, Segun, Salmon, Andrew, Robinson, Sophie, Rezaei Hemami, Mohsen, Dodman, Sophie, Kharechko, Andriy, Haigh, Richard, Jani, Meghna, McDonald, Timothy and Hoyle, Martin (2021) Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring TNF-alpha inhibitors and antibody levels in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 25 (8), 1-248. (doi:10.3310/hta25080).

Record type: Review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response.

METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira ®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel ®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade ®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia ®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi ®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor ® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care.

LIMITATIONS: There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales.

FUTURE WORK: Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: February 2021
Additional Information: Funding Information: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Publisher Copyright: © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2021.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 447522
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/447522
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 32b328de-850a-441f-a813-affaef6aed26
ORCID for Irina Tikhonova: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2723-0802

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Mar 2021 17:31
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 11:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Irina Tikhonova ORCID iD
Author: Huiqin Yang
Author: Segun Bello
Author: Andrew Salmon
Author: Sophie Robinson
Author: Mohsen Rezaei Hemami
Author: Sophie Dodman
Author: Andriy Kharechko
Author: Richard Haigh
Author: Meghna Jani
Author: Timothy McDonald
Author: Martin Hoyle

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×