| 1. |
- Elhai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes of patients with systemic sclerosis treated with rituximab in contemporary practice: a prospective cohort study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 78:7, s. 979-987
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To assess the safety and efficacy of rituximab in systemic sclerosis (SSc) in clinical practice.MethodsWe performed a prospective study including patients with SSc from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) network treated with rituximab and matched with untreated patients with SSc. The main outcomes measures were adverse events, skin fibrosis improvement, lung fibrosis worsening and steroids use among propensity score-matched patients treated or not with rituximab.Results254 patients were treated with rituximab, in 58% for lung and in 32% for skin involvement. After a median follow-up of 2 years, about 70% of the patients had no side effect. Comparison of treated patients with 9575 propensity-score matched patients showed that patients treated with rituximab were more likely to have skin fibrosis improvement (22.7 vs 14.03 events per 100 person-years; OR: 2.79 [1.47–5.32]; p=0.002). Treated patients did not have significantly different rates of decrease in forced vital capacity (FVC)>10% (OR: 1.03 [0.55–1.94]; p=0.93) nor in carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) decrease. Patients having received rituximab were more prone to stop or decrease steroids (OR: 2.34 [1.56–3.53], p<0.0001). Patients treated concomitantly with mycophenolate mofetil had a trend for better outcomes as compared with patients receiving rituximab alone (delta FVC: 5.22 [0.83–9.62]; p=0.019 as compared with controls vs 3 [0.66–5.35]; p=0.012).ConclusionRituximab use was associated with a good safety profile in this large SSc-cohort. Significant change was observed on skin fibrosis, but not on lung. However, the limitation is the observational design. The potential stabilisation of lung fibrosis by rituximab has to be addressed by a randomised trial.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Sen, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccine hesitancy decreases in rheumatic diseases, long-term concerns remain in myositis: a comparative analysis of the COVAD surveys
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology (Oxford, England). - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0332 .- 1462-0324. ; 62:10, s. 3291-3301
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveCOVID-19 vaccines have a favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) such as idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs); however, hesitancy continues to persist among these patients. Therefore, we studied the prevalence, predictors and reasons for hesitancy in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs), using data from the two international COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) e-surveys.MethodsThe first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.ResultsWe analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P < 0.001). However, concerns/fear over long-term safety had increased (OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 2.9, 4.6, P < 0.01). We noted with concern greater skepticism over vaccine science among patients with IIMs than AIRDs (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.2, P = 0.023) and HCs (OR: 4; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.1, P < 0.001), as well as more long-term safety concerns/fear (IIMs vs AIRDs – OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9, P = 0.001; IIMs vs HCs – OR: 5.4 95% CI: 3, 9.6, P < 0.001). Caucasians [OR 4.2 (1.7–10.3)] were likely to be more hesitant, while those with better PROMIS physical health score were less hesitant [OR 0.9 (0.8–0.97)].ConclusionVaccine hesitancy has decreased from 2021 to 2022, long-term safety concerns remain among patients with IIMs, particularly in Caucasians and those with poor physical function.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Aoude, M., et al.
(författare)
-
TREATMENT PATTERNS OF IDIOPATHIC INFLAMMATORY MYOPATHIES : RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL COHORT OF OVER 1,400 PATIENTS
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : HighWire Press. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81:Suppl. 1, s. 105-106
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of heterogeneous autoimmune disorders with limited standardization of treatment protocols.ObjectivesTo evaluate frequency and patterns of various treatments used for IIM based on disease subtype, world region, and organ involvement.MethodsCross-sectional data from the international CoVAD self-report e-survey1 was extracted on Sep 14th, 2021. Patient details included demographics, IIM subtypes (dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), inclusion body myositis (IBM), antisynthetase syndrome (ASSD), necrotizing myositis (NM) and overlap myositis (OM)), clinical symptoms, disease duration and activity, and current treatments. Treatments were categorized in corticosteroids (CS), antimalarials, immunosuppressants (IS), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), biologics, and others. Typical clinical symptoms (dyspnea, dysphagia) were used as surrogate for organ involvement. Factors associated with IS were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for IIM subtype, demographics, world region, disease activity, and prevalent clinical symptoms (>10%).ResultsIn 1418 patients with IIM, median age was 61 years [IQR 49-70], 62.5% were females, median disease duration was 6 years [IQR 3-11], most common subset was DM (32.4%).The most used treatments were IS (49.4%, including Methotrexate 19.6%, Mycophenolate Mofetil 18.2%, Azathioprine 8.8%, Cyclosporine 2.7%, Tacrolimus 2%, Leflunomide 1.6%, Sulfasalazine 1%, and Cyclophosphamide 0.6%), followed by CS (40.8%), antimalarials (13.8%) and IVIG (9.4%). Biologics were used in 4.3% of patients.Treatment patterns differed significantly by IIM subtypes with a higher frequency of IS (77.7%) and CS (63.4%) use in ASSD; antimalarials (28.6%) and biologics (9.8%) use in OM and IVIG use in NM (24.6%) (Table 1). Also, treatment patterns were different in regions of the world (Figure 1), with a higher frequency of CS use in Europe (60.5%) and IS use in South America (77.2%). Antimalarials were most used in Asia (19.4%), while IVIG use was most common in Oceania (16.9%). Dyspnea was associated with higher use of IS (69.9%) and CS (65.8%) (p<0.001), whereas dysphagia was negatively associated with IS (39.7%) and CS (32.7%) likely due to a higher proportion in IBM patients reporting dysphagia.Table 1.Current Treatments for IIM, Stratified by Disease SubtypesDermatomyositisPolymyositisInclusion Body MyositisAnti-synthetase syndromeNecrotizing myositisOverlap syndromeAll IIMp-valueNumber of patients459182348148572241418Immunosuppressants*269 (58.6)107 (58.8)39 (11.2)115 (77.7)40 (70.2)130 (58.0)700 (49.4)<0.001Corticosteroids208 (48.0)81 (46.8)32 (9.7)90 (63.4)32 (59.3)103 (50.0)546 (40.8)<0.001Antimalarials99 (21.6)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)25 (16.9)1 (1.8)64 (28.6)196 (13.8)<0.001Intravenous Immunoglobulins54 (11.8)16 (8.8)19 (5.5)10 (6.8)14 (24.6)20 (8.9)133 (9.4)<0.001Biologics**17 (3.7)7 (3.8)0 (0.0)13 (8.8)2 (3.5)22 (9.8)61 (4.3)<0.001Others***6 (1.3)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (0.7)0 (0.0)5 (2,2)12 (0.8)0.098*Methotrexate (278), Mycophenolate Mofetil (258), Azathioprine (125), Cyclosporine (38), Tacrolimus (28), Leflunomide (23), Sulfasalazine (14), Cyclophosphamide (9). **Rituximab (44), Abatacept (5), TNF inhibitors (4), Tocilizumab (3), Belimumab (3), Secukinumab (1). ***JAK(10) and PDE4 inhibitors (2)Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an association of IS with the IIM subtype (least used in IBM (OR 0.07 [95%CI 0.04-0.13] compared to DM), world region (most used in South America (OR 2.35 [1.12-4.91] compared to North America), active and worsening disease activity (OR 3.49 [1.76-6.91] compared to remission), and some clinical features (dyspnea, fatigue, and muscle weakness).ConclusionIIM treatment patterns differ significantly by disease subtypes, world regions and organ involvement, highlighting the need for unified international consensus-driven guidelines.References[1]Parikshit S. et al. Rheumatol Int. 2022 Jan;42(1):23–9.Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
