When Usual Care Is Not So Usual: Protocol Violations and Generalizability in a Treat-to-Target Strategy Trial in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of protocol violations in the treat-to-target group in the Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) trial and to compare the proportion of patients optimally treated according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS)/EULAR 2016 recommendations for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) between the treat-to-target versus usual care (UC) arms. This study was a cluster-randomized, controlled 48-week trial including patients with axSpA who fulfilled the ASAS criteria, had an Axial Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Score >2.1, and were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naive. Eighteen axSpA expert centers were randomly allocated to one treatment arm: (a) treat-to-target prespecified management strategy (four-week visits), and (b) UC treatment decisions at the rheumatologist's discretion (12-week visits). Protocol violations in the treat-to-target arm and the fulfillment of the 2016 ASAS/EULAR recommendations in both arms were evaluated at every visit. ASAS Health Index (ASAS-HI) and disease activity outcomes at 48 weeks were compared between treat-to-target violators versus nonviolators. Patients treated according to the ASAS/EULAR recommendations were compared between both arms. A total of 160 patients initiated the trial (80 patients with treat to target; 80 patients with UC). In the treat-to-target arm, 51.2% patients violated the protocol at least once (62.2% of violations resulting in maintenance/reduction of treatment against protocol). After 48 weeks, treat-to-target violators versus nonviolators showed similar ratios of ASAS-HI improvement. The proportion of patients managed according to the ASAS/EULAR recommendations after the first 12 weeks were 63.9% versus 61.8% for the treat-to-target and UC arms, respectively. Protocol violations in the treat-to-target arm in the TICOSPA trial were frequent, although they did not have an impact on the rate of the primary outcome. The groups with UC was optimally treated, partly explaining the nonachievement of the primary objective in the TICOSPA trial.