| 1. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K, et al.
(författare)
-
THE RISK OF LUNG CANCER IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND IN RELATION TO AUTOANTIBODY POSITIVITY AND SMOKING
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 247-247
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Lung cancer is a common malignancy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1,2. Since smoking is a risk factor for both (seropositive) RA and lung cancer, it remains unclear whether RA, in itself, increases lung cancer risk.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether and to what extent the increased risk of lung cancer in RA may (or may not) be attributable to smoking, and to examine this association, both in terms of absolute and relative risks, specifically in relation to RA serostatus.MethodsWe performed a population-based cohort study of RA patients and individually matched general population reference individuals identified in Swedish registers and from the EIRA early RA study, prospectively followed for lung cancer occurrence 1995 through 2018. We calculated incidence rates and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HR) including 95% confidence intervals (CI) of lung cancer, taking smoking and sero-status into account.ResultsOverall, we included 44,101 RA patients (590 incident lung cancers, 56 per 100,000), and 216,495 matched general population individuals (1,691 incident lung cancers, 33 per 100,000), corresponding to a crude HR (95% CI) of 1.76 (1.60-1.93). In subset analyses this increased risk remained after adjustment for smoking (HR=1.77, 95% CI 1.06-2.97). Compared to general population subjects who were never smokers, RA patients who were ever smokers had almost 7 times higher risk of lung cancer.Positive autoantibody status was associated with an at least doubled risk of lung cancer in ACPA positive patients (vs. ACPA negative patients) and double seropositive (vs. double seronegative) patients after adjusting for comorbidities and smoking (Table 1).Table 1.Number of events, person-years of follow-up, number of events per 100,000 person-years, and relative risk of lung cancer according to autoantibody status in the EIRA sub-cohort. Five Hazard ratios are presented: a) crude; b) adjusted for age, sex, index year, county of residency (model A); c) age, sex, index year, county of residency and comorbidities (renal failure, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, COPD, respiratory infections, hospitalization) (model B) c) all the above plus smoking (model C) and d) as model C with packet-years instead of smoking ever vs. never.No of events (person years of follow-up; No of events/100 000 person years)Crude Hazard ratio (95% CI)Model A Hazard ratio* (95% CI)Model BHazard ratio** (95% CI)Model CHazard ratio** (95% CI)Model D with smoking as pack-years instead of ever/neverPositiveNegativeRF (N=2060)30(49,440; 60.7)6(49,440; 12.1)2.78 (1.16-6.69)3.01 (1.25-7.26)2.82 (1.17-6.82)2.44 (1.01-5.89)2.16 (0.88-5.28)ACPA (N=2060)30(49,440; 60.7)6(49,440; 12.1)3.13 (1.30-7.51)3.43 (1.42-8.25)3.22 (1.33-7.77)2.88 (1.19-6.95)3.29 (1.26-8.58)RF and/or ACPA (N=2060)34(49,440; 68.8)2(49,440; 4.0)6.38 (1.53-26.56)7.62 (1.83-31.83)7.20 (1.72-30.11)6.29 (1.51-26.30)5.76 (1.37-24.21)RF and ACPA (positive vs. double negative)(N=1608)26(38,592; 67.4)2(38,592; 5.2)6.67 (1.58-28.08)7.92 (1.87-33.50)7.08 (1.67-29.98)6.21 (1.47-26.33)5.86 (1.37-25.01)The average absolute five-year risk of lung cancer counting from RA diagnosis was 1.3% in ever-smoking seropositive RA. At 20 years the risk was almost 3% in RA overall, and over 4% for patients who were ever smokers and had at least one autoantibody.ConclusionRA seropositivity is a strong and at least seemingly independent risk factor for lung cancer in RA. The absolute risks point to the potential for regular lung cancer screening, at least in seropositive RA.References[1]Simon TA, Thompson A, Gandhi KK, et al. Incidence of malignancy in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther Published Online First: 2015.[2]Khurana R, Wolf R, Berney S, et al. Risk of development of lung cancer is increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A large case control study in US veterans. J Rheumatol 2008.Disclosure of InterestsKaterina Chatzidionysiou Consultant of: consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, AbbVie and Pfizer, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Jonas Söderling: None declared, Anca Catrina: None declared, Johan Askling Grant/research support from: Karolinska Institutet has entered into agreements between Karolinska Institutet (JA as principal investigator) with AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB, mainly regarding safety monitoring of anti-rheumatic therapies
|
|
| 2. |
- Frodlund, M, et al.
(författare)
-
THE IMPACT OF IMMUNOMODULATING TREATMENT ON THE IMMUNOGENICITY OF COVID-19 VACCINES IN PATIENTS WITH IMMUNE-MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY RHEUMATIC DISEASES COMPARED TO HEALTHY CONTROLS. A SWEDISH NATIONWIDE STUDY (COVID19-REUMA)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 113-114
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Initial studies on the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) reported diminished antibody response in general, and particularly when treated with rituximab or abatacept (1). Additional data are needed, especially for patients with IRD and immunomodulatory treatments.ObjectivesTo elucidate the antibody response after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with IRD treated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) as monotherapy or combined with conventional synthetic DMARDS (csDMARDs).MethodsAntibodies against two antigens representing Spike full length protein and Spike S1 and a Nucleocapsid C-terminal fragment (used to confirm previously COVID-19 infection) were measured in serum obtained before and after the second vaccination using a multiplex bead-based serology assay (2). Patients with IRD receiving immunomodulating treatment, followed at a rheumatology department and healthy individuals (controls) were recruited from five Swedish regions. Antibody positivity was classified as the signal passing an antigen specific cutoff based on the mean intensity signal of 12 selected negative pre-pandemic controls plus 6SD for Spike/S1 and 12SD for Nucleocapsid-C. Good vaccine response was defined as having antibodies over cut-off level for both spike antigens. Percentage of responders in each treatment group was compared to controls (Chi2 test). Predictors of antibody response were determined using logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn total, 414 patients (320 RA/JIA/psoriatic arthritis/axial spondylarthritis, 60 systemic vasculitis and 32 other IRD) and 61 controls participated. Patients receiving rituximab (n=145; 65% female; mean age 65years), abatacept (n=21; 77% female; mean age 66 years), IL6 inhibitors (n=77; 74% female; mean age 64years), JAK-inhibitors (n=58; 75% female, mean age 53years), TNF-inhibitors (n=68; 66% female; mean age 44years;), IL17 inhibitors (n=42; 54% female; mean age 44years) and controls (n=61; 74% female, mean age 49years) were studied. Patients receiving IL6 inhibitor (81.0%), abatacept (43.8%) or rituximab (33.8%) had a significantly lower antibody response rate compared to controls (98.4%), further pronounced if combined with csDMARD (p<0.001) (Figure 1). In the adjusted logistic regression analysis, higher age, rituximab, abatacept, concomitant csDMARD but not IL6 inhibitors, concomitant prednisolone, or a vasculitis diagnosis, remained significant predictors of antibody response (Table 1). All vaccines were well tolerated. 14 (3.4%) patients reported an increased activity in their IRD following vaccination.ConclusionIn this nationwide study including IRD patients receiving b/ts DMARDs a decreased immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines was observed in patients receiving rituximab, abatacept and to some extent IL-6 inhibitors. Concomitant csDMARD gave further attenuation. Patients on rituximab and abatacept should be prioritized for booster doses of COVID19 vaccine.References[1]Jena, et al. Response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immune mediated inflammatory diseases: Systematic rev./meta-analysis. Autoim. Rev: 2021;102927[2]Hober, et al. Systematic evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigens enables a highly specific and sensitive multiplex serol. C-19 assay. Clin Transl Im. 2021;10(7): e1312Table 1.Predictors of antibody response to COVID-19 vaccineRituximab-1.799<0.0010.170.07-0.42Abatacept-1.9710.0010.140.04-0.45IL6 inhibitor0.0230.9651.020.36-2.94Age (years)-0.0810.0000.920.89-0.96csDMARD-1.1270.0020.320.16-0.66Prednisolone (mg/day)-0.0640.2060.940.85-1.04Frequency (%) of individuals with good antibody response to COVID-19 vaccineAcknowledgementsUnrestricted research grants have been received från Roche and starting grants from the Swedish Rheumatism AssociationDisclosure of InterestsMartina Frodlund Consultant of: Consultancy fees from AstraZeneca and GSK, Katerina Chatzidionysiou Consultant of: Consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, AbbVie and Pfizer, Anna Södergren: None declared, Eva Klingberg: None declared, Anders Bengtsson: None declared, Lars Klareskog Grant/research support from: Research grants from Pfizer, BMS, Affibody, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Meliha C Kapetanovic: None declared
|
|
| 3. |
- Barbulescu, A, et al.
(författare)
-
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF JAKI VERSUS BDMARDS; A NATIONWIDE STUDY IN RA
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 68-68
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been increasingly used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Sweden, with baricitinib representing ~80% of prescriptions. Evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of JAKis versus biologics (bDMARDs), and in particular non- tumour-necrosis-factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARDs, in real-life is limited.Objectives:To compare RA patients treated with bDMARDs and JAKi in Sweden, in terms of: (1) patient characteristics at treatment start; (2) proportions of patients remaining on therapy, and response rates, at 12 months.Methods:RA patients starting treatment in 2017 and 2018 with either a TNFi, rituximab, abatacept, interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL6i) or a JAKi as different lines of treatment were identified in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. One patient could contribute with more than one treatment episode.Treatment response at 12 months was measured as EULAR good response, HAQ improvement >0.2 units, DAS28 and CDAI remission, and as 0 tender and swollen joint counts (28JC). Patients were classified as non-responders if they stopped treatment before evaluation due to safety or inefficacy. Responses for patients who stopped treatment due to pregnancy or death and patients on treatment but with missing response were imputed using multiple imputation.Proportions of responders and differences in proportions between treatment groups, adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting, were estimated using linear regression with robust standard errors.Results:JAKi were often used after bDMARDs, and less frequently prescribed in combination with methotrexate. Measured comorbidities were less frequent among JAKi initiators than among non-TNFi biologic initiators, but RA activity was similar (Table).Table 1.Patient characteristics at treatment initiationCharacteristicMedian (IQR) or N (%)AbataceptIL6iRituximabTNFiJAKiTreatment Starts6945346923497905Age63 (53-71)59 (48-70)65 (54-73)59 (47-68)60 (51-70)Female543 (78)441 (83)519 (75)2739 (78)759 (84)RA duration (years)13 (5-21)10 (5-18)12 (6-22)9 (3-17)13 (7-22)Rheum. factor535 (79)385 (73)588 (87)2405 (70)686 (77)DAS284.8 (3.9-5.6)4.9 (4.0-5.7)4.7 (3.8-5.5)4.4 (3.4-5.3)4.7 (3.9-5.7)HAQ1.3 (0.8-1.6)1.3 (0.8-1.8)1.3 (0.8-1.8)1.0 (0.5-1.4)1.3 (0.8-1.8)Tender joints5 (2-9)6 (3-10)5 (2-9)4 (2-8)6 (2-10)Swollen joints4 (2-6)4 (2-7)4 (2-7)3 (1-6)4 (2-7)ts/bDMARD line3 (2-4)3 (2-4)2 (1-4)1 (1-2)4 (2-6)At least one prev. TNFi539 (78)442 (83)457 (66)1448 (41)770 (85)At least one prev. non-TNFi271 (39)220 (41)243 (35)441 (13)584 (65)Methotrexate co-treatment264 (50)172 (40)286 (53)1708 (62)296 (40)Glucocorticoids co-treatment247 (47)186 (43)275 (51)1126 (41)389 (53)Cancer*90 (2.8)64 (2.3)363 (7.7)410 (1.8)20 (2.2)Cardio-vascular dis.*245 (7.5)123 (4.4)322 (6.8)749 (3.4)41 (4.4)Chronic respiratory dis.*303 (9.3)140 (5.0)473 (10.0)721 (3.2)50 (5.4)Diabetes*324 (9.9)216 (7.7)456 (9.7)1479 (6.7)69 (7.5)* any diagnosis within 5 years before start Adjusted differences in proportion with each response outcomeIn a crude comparison, 65% (61%-68%) of JAKi, 62% (59%-66%) of abatacept, 58% (53%-62%) of IL6i, 80% (77%-83%) of rituximab and 68% (67%-70%) of TNFi initiators remained on treatment at 12 months after start. Also, JAKi showed lower overall responder proportions than TNFi, rituximab and IL6i.After adjustment for demographic and socio-economic factors, RA disease activity, previous use of ts/bDMARDs, co-medication with glucocorticoids and methotrexate and comorbidities at baseline, no significant differences in responder proportions between JAKi and bDMARDs remained (Figure). Furthermore, the adjusted proportions of patients on treatment were higher for JAKi and rituximab than for the other bDMARDs.Conclusion:This preliminary analysis of patients treated in clinical practice found no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between JAKi and bDMARDs.Disclosure of Interests:Andrei Barbulescu: None declared, Johan Askling Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB. These entities have entered into agreements with Karolinska Institutet with JA as principal investigator, mainly in the context of safety monitoring of biologics via the ARTIS national safety monitoring system, Katerina Chatzidionysiou Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Abbvie and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Abbvie and Pfizer, Helena Forsblad-d’Elia: None declared, Alf Kastbom Employee of: Sanofi, Ulf Lindström: None declared, Carl Turesson Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Roche, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thomas Frisell: None declared
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug co-therapy with methotrexate and leflunomide in rituximab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: results of a 1-year follow-up study from the CERERRA collaboration
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 71:3, s. 374-377
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the effectiveness and safety of rituximab alone or in combination with either methotrexate or leflunomide.Methods10 European registries submitted anonymised datasets with baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month clinical data from patients who started rituximab.Results1195 patients were treated with rituximab plus methotrexate, 177 with rituximab plus leflunomide and 505 with rituximab alone. Significantly more patients achieved a European League Against Rheumatism good response at 6 months when treated with rituximab plus leflunomide (29.1%) compared with rituximab plus methotrexate (21.1%) and rituximab alone (19.3%; p=0.02 and p=0.01, respectively). Similar results were observed at 12 months. Adverse events occurred in 10.2%, 13.2% and 13.9% of patients on rituximab plus leflunomide, rituximab plus methotrexate and rituximab alone, respectively.ConclusionsLeflunomide is an effective and safe alternative to methotrexate as concomitant treatment with rituximab. Slightly better results were obtained by the combination of rituximab and leflunomide than rituximab and methotrexate, raising the possibility of a synergistic effect of leflunomide and rituximab.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of glucocorticoids, conventional and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:6, s. 1102-1107
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAn SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials.ResultsFor GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations.ConclusionsAddition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
