Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Nov;80(11):1436-1444.
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219585. Epub 2021 May 6.

Efficacy of a tight-control and treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised TICOSPA trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy of a tight-control and treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised TICOSPA trial

Anna Molto et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the benefits of a tight-control/treat-to-target strategy (TC/T2T) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with those of usual care (UC).

Methods: Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomised, controlled, open, 1-year trial (NCT03043846). 18 centres were randomised (1:1). Patients met Axial Spondylo Arthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA, had an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥2.1, received non-optimal treatment by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and were biologic-naive.

Interventions: (1) TC/T2T: visits every 4 weeks and prespecified strategy based on treatment intensification until achieving target (ie, ASDAS <2.1); (2) UC: visits every 12 weeks and treatment at the rheumatologist's discretion.

Main outcome: Percentage of patients with a ≥30% improvement on the ASAS-Health Index (ASAS-HI). Other efficacy outcomes and adverse events were recorded. A health economic evaluation was performed.

Statistical analysis: Two-level mixed models were used to estimate efficacy outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC/T2T versus UC.

Results: 160 patients were included (80/group). Mean (SD) age was 37.9 (11.0) years and disease duration was 3.7 (6.2) years; 51.2% were men. ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7), and ASAS-HI was 8.6 (3.7). ASAS-HI improved by ≥30% in 47.3% of the TC/T2T arm and in 36.1% of those receiving UC (non-significant). All secondary efficacy outcomes were more frequent in the TC/T2T arm, although not all statistically significant. Safety was similar in both arms. From a societal perspective, TC/T2T resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY, and saved €472 compared with UC.

Conclusion: TC/T2T was not significantly superior to UC for the primary outcome, while many secondary efficacy outcomes favoured it, had a similar safety profile and was favourable from a societal health economic perspective.

Trial registration number: NCT03043846.

Keywords: ankylosing; healthcare; outcome and process assessment; spondylitis; therapeutics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Dr van Tubergen reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants from UCB, grants from Biogen, grants from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. Dr van der Heijde reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, outside the submitted work; and Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Dr van Gaalen reports grants from Stichting vrienden van Sole Mio, grants from Stichting ASAS, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants from UCB, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. AB received a research grant to her department from AbbVie, consultation fees from Eli Lilly and Galapagos and a speakers fee from UCB, all paid to her department. Dr Van den Bosch reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Galapagos, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work. Dr Claudepierre reports personal fees from Roche Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, grants from Roche Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, MSD, AbbVie, Lilly, Celgene, Janssen, BMS, outside the submitted work. Dr Molto reports grants from UCB during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from UCB, personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr Gossec reports grants from Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Galapagos, personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, outside the submitted work. Dr Dougados reports grants from UCB, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Lilly, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr Dernis, Dr Ruyssen-Witrand, Dr Lenaerts, Dr Lopez-Medina, Dr Sparsa, Dr Starmans-Kool, Dr C Webers, Dr Pouplin, Dr Soubrier and Dr Joos have nothing to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study. ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; SpA, spondyloarthritis; TC/T2T, tight control and treat-to-target; UC, usual care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ASAS-HI improvement ≥30%, ASDAS LDA status and ASAS40 response estimated at 48 weeks. *Statistical significance. ASAS-HI, Axial Spondyloarthritis International Society-Health Index; ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; LDA, low disease activity; T2T/TC, treat-to-target and tight control; UC, usual care.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, et al. . A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286–91. - PubMed
    1. Lukas C, Landewé R, Sieper J, et al. . Development of an ASAS-endorsed disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:18–24. 10.1136/ard.2008.094870 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Heijde D, Braun J, Dougados M, et al. . Sensitivity and discriminatory ability of the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score in patients treated with etanercept or sulphasalazine in the ASCEND trial. Rheumatology 2012;51:1894–905. 10.1093/rheumatology/kes142 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Machado PM, Landewé R, Heijde Dvander, et al. . Ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS): 2018 update of the nomenclature for disease activity states. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:1539–40. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213184 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Machado P, Landewé R, Lie E, et al. . Ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS): defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:47–53. 10.1136/ard.2010.138594 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data