| 1. |
- Bower, Hannah, et al.
(författare)
-
Are JAKis more effective among elderly patients with RA, smokers and those with higher cardiovascular risk? A comparative effectiveness study of b/tsDMARDs in Sweden.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2056-5933. ; 9:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To investigate whether the relative effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis differ by the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease, age, sex and smoking.Through Swedish registers, we identified 13493 individuals with 3166 JAKi, 5575 non-TNFi and 11 286 TNFi treatment initiations 2016-2022. All lines of therapy were included, with the majority in second line or higher. Treatment response was defined as the proportion reaching European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) good response and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, respectively, within 6 months. Crude percentage point differences in these proportions (JAKis, and non-TNFis, vs TNFis) overall and by risk factors were observed, and adjusted for confounders using linear regression models. Predicted probabilities of response and remission were estimated from adjusted Poisson models, and presented across CV risk and age.Overall, adjusted percentage point differences indicated higher response (+5.0%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.9%) and remission (+5.8%, 95% CI 3.2% to 8.5%) with JAKis versus TNFis. The adjusted percentage point differences for response in those above 65, at elevated CV risk, and smokers were +5.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.0%), +8.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 11.4%) and +6.0% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.7%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for remission were +8.0% (95% CI 5.3% to 10.8%), +5.6% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.2%) and +7.6% (95% CI 5.5% to 9.7%).As used in clinical practice, response and remission at 6 months with JAKis are higher than with TNFi. Among patients with risk factors of concern, effectiveness is similar or numerically further increased. For individualised benefit-to-risk ratios to guide treatment choice, safety and effectiveness in specific patient segments should be considered.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bower, Hannah, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality in patients with inflammatory joint diseases and in the general population : a nationwide Swedish cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80:8, s. 1086-1093
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To estimate absolute and relative risks for all-cause mortality and for severe COVID-19 in inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and with antirheumatic therapies.Methods: Through Swedish nationwide multiregister linkages, we selected all adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=53 455 in March 2020), other IJDs (here: spondyloarthropathies, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, n=57 112), their antirheumatic drug use, and individually matched population referents. We compared annual all-cause mortality March-September 2015 through 2020 within and across cohorts, and assessed absolute and relative risks for hospitalisation, admission to intensive care and death due to COVID-19 March-September 2020, using Cox regression.Results: During March-September 2020, the absolute all-cause mortality in RA and in other IJDs was higher than 2015-2019, but relative risks versus the general population (around 2 and 1.5) remained similar during 2020 compared with 2015-2019. Among patients with IJD, the risks of hospitalisation (0.5% vs 0.3% in their population referents), admission to intensive care (0.04% vs 0.03%) and death (0.10% vs 0.07%) due to COVID-19 were low. Antirheumatic drugs were not associated with increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, although for certain drugs, precision was limited.Conclusions: Risks of severe COVID-19-related outcomes were increased among patients with IJDs, but risk increases were also seen for non-COVID-19 morbidity. Overall absolute and excess risks are low and the level of risk increases are largely proportionate to those in the general population, and explained by comorbidities. With possible exceptions, antirheumatic drugs do not have a major impact on these risks.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Chatzidionysiou, Katerina
(författare)
-
Biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis : epidemiological studies
- 2014
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The landscape of RA treatment has unquestionably changed dramatically during the last decade. A deeper understanding of the pathophysiological and immunological mechanisms in RA, earlier and more aggressive treatment, and the development and introduction to daily clinical practice of a new class of antirheumatic drugs, the so-called biologic therapies, has contributed to this ‘revolution’. To date, nine biologic agents have been approved for the treatment for RA and more molecules with distinct mechanisms of action are currently being tested in laboratories and in clinical trials. In all cases, very good clinical efficacy and safety were documented in large, randomized, controlled clinical trials that led to regulatory approval. However, not all questions regarding the optimal use of these agents can be addressed in randomized trials. Observational studies based on registries can provide important information about the effectiveness and safety of biologics in real-life RA populations as well as better insight of different treatment strategies. Thus they are important ‘pieces of the puzzle’ and can help complete the picture of RA treatment. This thesis comprises of two parts: part I is based on four studies about several aspects of rituximab use in RA which are based on a large international cohort. The second part is based on four studies about the use of TNF inhibitors in RA (cycling, switching and discontinuation) which are based on local and national registers and a pilot clinical trial.
|
|
| 6. |
- Chatzidionysiou, Katerina, et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of TNF inhibitor switch in RA: results from the national Swedish register
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 74:5, s. 890-896
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Switching to a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) after discontinuation of a first in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common strategy. The reason for the switch from the first TNFi could potentially influence the response to therapy. Data on direct comparisons between TNFi after switching are limited. Methods The national Swedish register was used. RA patients who switched to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab) after failure of a TNFi as first-ever biologic were identified. Effectiveness of treatment was compared across the three drugs according to the first TNFi used, the reason for discontinuing and the drug survival. Drug survival across TNFi used as second biologic was compared. Results Half of all patients starting infliximab, adalimumab or etanercept during the period 2005-2012 discontinued treatment for various reasons. Of these patients, a third switched within 2 months to a second TNFi (infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab). Around 35% of all patients achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months. Regarding the switching strategy, best results were observed among patients who switched from infliximab to etanercept because of (secondary) inefficacy. Etanercept as second TNFi was associated with longer drug survival compared with infliximab. Conclusions Switching to a second TNFi after the failure of the first may lead to good clinical results. The inter-drug differences in drug survival on the second TNFi mirror those reported previously for the first TNFi, suggesting that these differences are not solely due to channelling bias.
|
|
| 7. |
- Da Mutten, Raffaele, et al.
(författare)
-
Intracardiac Thrombi in Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet in Two Swedish Patients
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 12:16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet (MAB) is an inflammatory disease typically manifesting with oral and genital aphthosis, erythema nodosum, and vasculopathy, and in only around 2%, cardiac involvement. Its prevalence is usually higher along the historic Silk Road, but rarer in Scandinavia where 0.64-4.9 in 100,000 people are affected. We herein present two Swedish patients with cardiac manifestations of Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet. Along with the intracardial thrombi, which both patients presented with, one patient also had cerebrovascular insults leading to visual field deficits as well as involvement of peripheral nerves. Being of Scandinavian origin and showing uncommon symptoms as their initial manifestations of MAB, the 62- and 35-year-old patients presenting herein constitute rare cases.
|
|
| 8. |
- Emamikia, Sharzad, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors associated with non-adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus : Results from a Swedish survey
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Lupus. - : Sage Publications. - 0961-2033 .- 1477-0962. ; 33:6, s. 615-628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of medication non-adherence in a Swedish population of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).METHODS: Patients with SLE from Karolinska and Örebro University Hospitals participated in a survey-based cross-sectional study. Demographics, disease activity, organ damage, HRQoL (LupusQol, EQ-5D-5 L), medication non-adherence (<80% on CQR-19 or MASRI) and beliefs about medicines (BMQ) were registered. MASRI was used to report adherence to different drugs/drug classes, categorised into (i) antimalarial agents (AMA), (ii) glucocorticoids and (iii) other SLE medications. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, disease activity and organ damage.RESULTS: Among 205 respondents, the median age was 52.0 years (IQR: 34.0-70.0), 86.3% were women, 66.8% were non-adherent to their medications according to CQR-19, and 6.6% and 6.3% were non-adherent to AMA and glucocorticoids, respectively, according to MASRI. Positive beliefs about glucocorticoids (OR; 95% CI: 0.77; 0.59-0.99; p = .039) and medications overall (0.71; 0.52-0.97; p = .029) were protective against non-adherence to glucocorticoids. Anxiety/depression (3.09; 1.12-8.54; p = .029), medication concerns (1.12; 1.05-1.20; p < .001) and belief that medications are overused (1.30; 1.15-1.46; p < .001) or harmful (1.36; 1.19-1.56; p < .001) were associated with medication non-adherence (CQR-19); beliefs in the necessity of medications (0.73; 0.65-0.82; p < .001) and positive beliefs in medications were protective (0.72; 0.60-0.86; p < .001). No associations were found between other investigated factors and medication non-adherence.CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about medications were a major determinant of medication non-adherence. Patient education may help alleviate the negative impact of misinformation/unawareness on adherence.
|
|
| 9. |
- Frodlund, Martina, et al.
(författare)
-
The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs : a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Microbiology Spectrum. - : AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY. - 2165-0497. ; 12:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or ≥fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses.
|
|
| 10. |
- Frodlund, Martina, et al.
(författare)
-
The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs: a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Microbiology Spectrum. - : AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY. - 2165-0497.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or >= fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. IMPORTANCE Results from this study provide further evidence that additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are immunogenic and result in satisfactory antibody response in a majority of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) receiving potent immunomodulating treatments such as biological or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) given as monotherapy or combined with traditional DMARDs. We observed that rituximab treatment, both as monotherapy and combined with csDMARDs, impaired antibody response, and only roughly 50% of patients developed a satisfactory antibody response including response to omicron subvariants after the third vaccine. In addition, higher IgG levels at the last rituximab course before the third vaccine dose and a longer time after the last rituximab treatment increased the chance of a satisfactory antibody response. These results indicate that rituximab-treated patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. CLINICAL TRIALS EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with number 2021-000880-63.
|
|
| 11. |
- Frodlund, Martina, et al.
(författare)
-
The serological immunogenicity of the third and fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases on different biologic or targeted DMARDs: a Swedish nationwide study (COVID-19-REUMA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: MICROBIOLOGY SPECTRUM. - : AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY. - 2165-0497. ; 12:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies investigating the immunogenicity of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are still limited. The objective was to explore the antibody response including response to omicron virus subvariants (sBA.1 and sBS.2) after third and fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses in Swedish IRD patients treated with immunomodulating drugs compared to controls. Antibody levels to spike wild-type antigens (full-length protein and S1) and the omicron variants sBA.1 and sBA.2 (full-length proteins) were measured. A positive response was defined as having antibody levels over cut-off or >= fourfold increase in post-vaccination levels for both antigens. Patients with arthritis, vasculitis, and other autoimmune diseases (n = 414), and controls (n = 61) receiving biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with or without conventional synthetic DMARDs participated. Of these, blood samples were available for 370 patients and 52 controls after three doses, and 65 patients and 15 controls after four doses. Treatment groups after three vaccine doses were rituximab (n = 133), abatacept (n = 22), IL6r inhibitors (n = 71), JAnus Kinase inhibitors (JAK-inhibitors) (n = 56), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-inhibitors) (n = 61), IL12/23/17 inhibitors (n = 27), and controls (n = 52). The percentage of responders after three and four vaccine doses was lower in rituximab-treated patients (59% and 57%) compared to controls (100%) (P < 0.001). After three doses, the percentage of responders in all other groups was 100%, including response to omicron sBA.1 and sBA.2. In rituximab-treated patients, higher baseline immunoglobulin G (IgG) and longer time-period between rituximab and vaccination predicted better response. In this Swedish nationwide study including IRD patients three and four COVID-19 vaccine doses were immunogenic in patients treated with IL6r inhibitors, TNF-inhibitors, JAK-inhibitors, and IL12/23/17-inhibitors but not in rituximab. As >50% of rituximab patients responded to vaccines including omicron subvariants, these patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. IMPORTANCE Results from this study provide further evidence that additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines are immunogenic and result in satisfactory antibody response in a majority of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) receiving potent immunomodulating treatments such as biological or targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) given as monotherapy or combined with traditional DMARDs. We observed that rituximab treatment, both as monotherapy and combined with csDMARDs, impaired antibody response, and only roughly 50% of patients developed a satisfactory antibody response including response to omicron subvariants after the third vaccine. In addition, higher IgG levels at the last rituximab course before the third vaccine dose and a longer time after the last rituximab treatment increased the chance of a satisfactory antibody response. These results indicate that rituximab-treated patients should be prioritized for additional vaccine doses. CLINICAL TRIALS EudraCT (European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database) with number 2021-000880-63.
|
|
| 12. |
- Sundén-Cullberg, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Anakinra or tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe covid-19 at high risk of deterioration (IMMCoVA): A randomized, controlled, open-label trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 18:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Anakinra and tocilizumab are used for severe Covid-19, but only one previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has studied both. We performed a multi-center RCT comparing anakinra or tocilizumab versus usual care (UC) for adults at high risk of deterioration.Methods: The study was conducted June 2020 to March 2021. Eligibility required ≥ 5 liters/minute of Oxygen to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation at ≥ 93%, CRP > 70 mg/L, ferritin > 500 μg/L and at least two points where one point was awarded for lymphocytes < 1x 109/L; D-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L and; lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 8 microkatal/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive either a single dose of tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or anakinra 100 mg IV QID for seven days or UC alone. The primary outcome was time to recovery.Results: Recruitment was ended prematurely when tocilizumab became part of usual care. Out of a planned 195 patients, 77 had been randomized, 27 to UC, 28 to anakinra and 22 to tocilizumab. Median time to recovery was 15, 15 and 11 days. Rate ratio for recovery for UC vs anakinra was 0.91, 0.47 to 1.78, 95% [CI], p = 0.8 and for UC vs tocilizumab 1.13, 0.55 to 2.30; p = 0.7. There were non-significant trends favoring tocilizumab (and to limited degree anakinra) vs UC for some secondary outcomes. Safety profiles did not differ significantly.Conclusion: Premature closure of trial precludes firm conclusions. Anakinra or tocilizumab did not significantly shorten time to clinical recovery compared to usual care. (IMMCoVA, NCT04412291, EudraCT: 2020-00174824).
|
|
| 13. |
- van Vollenhoven, Ronald F., et al.
(författare)
-
Conventional combination treatment versus biological treatment in methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year follow-up of the randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group Swefot trial
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 379:9827, s. 1712-1720
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Analysis of the Swedish Farmacotherapy (Swefot) trial at 12 months showed that the addition of an anti-tumour-necrosis-factor agent gave an improved clinical outcome compared with the addition of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis. Here we report the 2 year follow-up assessment. Methods In this randomised, non-blinded, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adult patients older than 18 years with rheumatoid arthritis and a symptom duration of less than 1 year from 15 rheumatology units in Sweden between December, 2002 and December, 2006. All patients were started on methotrexate. After 3-4 months, those who failed treatment were randomly assigned (1: 1) to group A (conventional treatment; additional sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine) or group B (biological treatment; additional infliximab). Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence. We analysed clinical outcomes at months 18 and 24 by the response criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, and radiographs of patients' hands and feet at months 12 and 24 using the Van der Heijde modification of the Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00764725. Findings Of 493 screened individuals, we enrolled 487, of whom 258 were randomly allocated to treatment. The proportion of patients in group B who received a EULAR-defined good response was non-significantly greater than it was in group A at 18 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 38 of 130 [29%]) and at 24 months (49 of 128 [38%] vs 40 of 130 [31%]; p=0.204). After 24 months, radiological disease progression was greater in patients in group A than it was in those in group B (mean 7.23 [SD 12.72] vs 4.00 [10.0]; p=0.009). We recorded three serious adverse events: an extended generalised illness in group A, an extended febrile episode in group B, and a generalised illness in group B. Interpretation Additional biological treatment is a valid option for patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment. However, improved clinical outcomes after 12 months and better radiographical results after 24 months should be weighed against the absence of a convincing clinical difference at 24 months and substantially higher costs. Therefore, for many patients who fail initial methotrexate treatment, add-on treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is an appropriate treatment option.
|
|
