| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hetland, M. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bmj-British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 371
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intraarticular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI <= 2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. RESULTS 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.
|
|
| 3. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of a Second Biologic After Failure of a Non-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor As First Biologic in Rheumatoid Arthritis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - : The Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 48:10, s. 1512-1518
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients whose first-ever bDMARD was a non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of a second bDMARD (non-TNFi: rituximab [RTX], abatacept [ABA], or tocilizumab [TCZ], separately; and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. Methods. We identified patients with RA from the 5 Nordic biologics registers who started treatment with a non-TNFi as first-ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed drug survival (at 6 and 12 months) and primary response (at 6 months). Results. We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67, and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFi bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, approximately 70% and 60%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months, less than one-third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFi, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). Conclusion. The drug survival and primary response of a second bDMARD in patients with RA switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Glintborg, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Biological treatment in ankylosing spondylitis in the Nordic countries during 2010-2016: a collaboration between five biological registries
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0300-9742 .- 1502-7732. ; 47:6, s. 465-474
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Large-scale observational cohorts may be used to study the effectiveness and rare side effects of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), but may be hampered by differences in baseline characteristics and disease activity across countries. We aimed to explore the research infrastructure in the five Nordic countries regarding bDMARD treatment in AS. Method: This observational cohort study was based on data from biological registries in Denmark (DANBIO), Sweden (SRQ/ARTIS), Finland (ROB-FIN), Norway (NOR-DMARD), and Iceland (ICEBIO). Data were collected for the years 2010-2016. Registry coverage, registry inventory (patient characteristics, disease activity measures), and national guidelines for bDMARD prescription in AS were described per country. Incident (first line) and prevalent bDMARD use per capita, country, and year were calculated. In AS patients who started first line bDMARDs during 2010-2016 (n = 4392), baseline characteristics and disease activity measures were retrieved. Results: Registry coverage of bDMARD-treated patients ranged from 60% to 95%. All registries included extensive prospectively collected data at patient level. Guidelines regarding choice of first line drug and prescription patterns varied across countries. During the period 2010-2016 prevalent bDMARD use increased (p < 0.001), whereas incident use tended to decrease (p for trend < 0.004), with large national variations (e.g. 2016 incidence: Iceland 10.7/100 000, Finland 1.7/100 000). Baseline characteristics were similar regarding C-reactive protein, but differed for other variables, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) (range 3.5-6.3) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) (2.7-3.8) (both p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Collaboration across the five Nordic biological registries regarding bDMARD use in AS is feasible but national differences in coverage, prescription patterns, and patient characteristics must be taken into account depending on the scientific question.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Glintborg, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 82:6, s. 820-828
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWe aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness. MethodsPatients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more). ResultsIn total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naive) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naive) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs. ConclusionUptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Stockfelt, Marit, et al.
(författare)
-
Plasma interferon-alpha is associated with double-positivity for autoantibodies but is not a predictor of remission in early rheumatoid arthritis-a spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Arthritis Research & Therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1478-6354 .- 1478-6362. ; 23:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The type I interferon (IFN) gene signature is present in a subgroup of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Protein levels of IFN alpha have not been measured in RA and it is unknown whether they associate with clinical characteristics or treatment effect. Methods Patients with early untreated RA (n = 347) were randomized to methotrexate combined with prednisone, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Plasma IFN alpha protein levels were determined by single molecular array (Simoa) before and 24 weeks after treatment initiation and were related to demographic and clinical factors including clinical disease activity index, disease activity score in 28 joints, swollen and tender joint counts, and patient global assessment. Results IFN alpha protein positivity was found in 26% of the patients, and of these, 92% were double-positive for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA). IFN alpha protein levels were reduced 24 weeks after treatment initiation, and the absolute change was similar irrespective of treatment. IFN alpha protein positivity was associated neither with disease activity nor with achievement of CDAI remission 24 weeks after randomization. Conclusion IFN alpha protein positivity is present in a subgroup of patients with early RA and associates with double-positivity for autoantibodies but not with disease activity. Pre-treatment IFN alpha positivity did not predict remission in any of the treatment arms, suggesting that the IFN alpha system is distinct from the pathways of TNF, IL-6, and T-cell activation in early RA. A spin-off study of the NORD-STAR randomized clinical trial, NCT01491815 (ClinicalTrials), registered 12/08/2011, .
|
|
