Article Text

Download PDFPDF

  1. A. Moltó1,
  2. C. López-Medina1,
  3. F. Van den Bosch1,
  4. A. Boonen1,
  5. C. Webers1,
  6. E. Dernis1,
  7. F. A. Van Gaalen1,
  8. M. Soubrier1,
  9. P. Claudepierre1,
  10. A. Baillet1,
  11. M. Starmans-Kool1,
  12. D. Van der Heijde1,
  13. M. Dougados1
  1. 1TICOSPA Study Group, Paris, France


Background: Current recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) management include tight control and treat-to-target (TC) strategies, but no study has evaluated its potential benefit

Objectives: To evaluate the benefit of TC strategies in comparison to usual care (UC) in patients with axSpA.

Methods: Study design: Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled (2 arms), one-year trial (NCT03043846). Centers: 18 axSpA expert centers randomly allocated (1:1) to the treatment arm: TC vs. UC. Patients: axSpA diagnosis and ASAS criteria, non-optimally treated with NSAIDs, bDMARD-naïve, and ASDAS > 2.1 at inclusion. Study treatment: a) TC arm: the strategy was pre-specified by the scientific committee based on current axSpA recommendations and aiming at a target (ASDAS <2.1); visits every 4w; b) UC arm: treatment decisions were at the rheumatologist’s discretion with visits every 12w. Outcomes: the % of patients with a significant (>30%) improvement in the ASAS-HI score over one-year follow-up was the main outcome. Other outcomes (disease activity, quality of life, treatment, …) over follow-up were evaluated (Table 1). The number/type of adverse events were collected. Statistical analysis: this was an intention-to-treat analysis. To take into account the cluster-randomization design, for all outcomes, two models were performed: first a two-level mixed model with 2 random effects was used to estimate the % of responders/the change of the outcome over follow-up (i.e. mod1); in a second step, the imbalanced variables observed at baseline were included in the model (i.e.mod2). Cost-effectiveness was assessed by estimating the (baseline- and cluster-adjusted) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC vs. UC.

Results: 160 patients were included (80 in TC and 80 in UC). Mean age was 37.9(11.0) years with a disease duration of 3.7(6.2) years, 51.2% were males. A radiographic damage of the SI-joints, a (ever) positive MRI sacroiliitis and HLA-B27+ were seen in 46.9%, 81.9% and 75.0% patients respectively. Mean ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7) and mean ASASHI was 8.6 (3.7). 72 patients per group attended the one-year visit. Although 47.3% vs. 36.1% patients in the TC and UC arms achieved a significant improvement in ASASHI at the one-year visit, the difference was not statistically significant, with either model. Across all other outcomes a trend was observed in favor of the TC arm (Table 1). The number of bDMARDs was significantly higher in TC arm (56.2% vs. 27.2%). The number of infections was comparable in both groups (15 vs. 16 in the TC and UC, respectively), with only 2 severe infections occurring in the UC arm. From a societal perspective, TC resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY and saved €265 when compared to UC and a 67% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: In this setting of SpA expert centers, UC resulted in a good outcome in a substantial number of patients but the TC was not superior for the primary outcome despite a greater number of bDMARDs prescription. Nevertheless, a general trend in favor of the tight control was observed, with a comparable safety profile and was found to be favorable from a societal health economic perspective.

Acknowledgments: this trial has been conducted thanks to an unrestricted grant from UCB

Disclosure of Interests: Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Annelies Boonen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Consultant of: Galapagos, Lilly (all paid to the department), Casper Webers: None declared, Emmanuelle Dernis Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Floris A. van Gaalen: None declared, Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Pascal Claudepierre Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review, Mirian Starmans-Kool: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.