| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 6. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 180:1, s. 167-176
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). Methods In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1-T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. Results Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. Conclusions This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015
|
|
| 7. |
- Alping, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of initial MS treatments in the COMBAT-MS trial : injectables, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab and rituximab
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Multiple Sclerosis Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 1352-4585 .- 1477-0970. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. 21-22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Direct comparisons across multiple disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are valuable in clinical decision making. COMBAT-MS (NCT03193866) is an observational drug trial capturing data on clinical relapses, lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and drug survival, at all Swedish university clinics.Objective: Compare the effectiveness of the most common initial MS therapies in Sweden.Methods: All first-ever MS treatments with injectables (INJ, interferon-β/glatiramer acetate), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), natalizumab (NTZ), and rituximab (RTX), started 2011-01-01 to 2020-12-14, were identified with prospectively recorded outcome data in the Swedish MS Register. Follow-up continued even if the therapy ended. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation and potential confounding was adjusted for using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting with baseline variables: age, sex, MS duration, geographical region, EDSS, and relapses. All comparisons are made against RTX.Results: We included 1936 first-ever therapy episodes: 856 INJ, 341 DMF, 270 NTZ, and 469 RTX. Baseline characteristics differed by DMT, with natalizumab having the youngest patients, shortest MS duration, and the most previous relapses.After adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for first relapse vs RTX was for INJ 5.9 (95% confidence interval 3.7; 9.5), DMF 2.8 (1.7; 4.8), and NTZ 1.8 (1.0; 3.3). Similarly, the relative three-year lesion rate was for INJ 6.06 (3.75; 9.80), DMF 3.52 (2.01; 6.17), and NTZ 2.03 (1.14; 3.64). EDSS differences at three years were only marginally different: INJ 0.25 (0.06; 0.44), DMF 0.05 (-0.16; 0.26), and NTZ 0.00 (-0.23; 0.24). In contrast, HR for treatment discontinuation was marked: INJ 32.5 (19.0; 55.7), DMF 20.2 (11.5; 35.4), and NTZ 16.2 (8.9; 29.5).Conclusions: In treatment-naïve patients, RTX was associated with the lowest risk of relapses and MRI lesions, and by far the lowest probability of switching to a second therapy. In contrast, EDSS at 3 years was similar for RTX, DMF, and NTZ, and only slightly higher for INJ. The apparent difference in effectiveness between NTZ and RTX could possibly be explained by the vulnerable period after switching from NTZ, mainly due to JC virus positivity. These findings underscore the importance of tracking long-term outcomes from first DMT start, while considering subsequent therapy switches.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
