| 1. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 82:1, s. 3-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3–6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.
|
|
| 2. |
- Courvoisier, DS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 81:6, s. 780-785
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias.ObjectivesTo develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.MethodsThe PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated.ResultsThree overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns.ConclusionTo improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lauper, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Analysing and reporting of observational data: a systematic review informing the EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology
- 2021
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points to consider.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review searching Ovid MEDLINE for original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies, published in key rheumatology journals between 2008 and 2019. The extracted information focused on reporting and types of analyses. We evaluated if year of publication impacted results.ResultsFrom 9969 abstracts reviewed, 211 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ten per cent of studies did not adjust for confounding factors. Some studies did not explain how they chose covariates for adjustment (9%), used bivariate screening (21%) and/or stepwise selection procedures (18%). Only 33% studies reported the number of patients lost to follow-up and 25% acknowledged attrition (drop-out or treatment cessation). To account for attrition, studies used non-responder imputation, followed by last observation carried forward (LOCF) and complete case (CC) analyses. Most studies did not report the number of missing data on covariates (83%), and when addressed, 49% used CC and 11% LOCF. Date of publication did not influence the results.ConclusionMost studies did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a tenth did not adjust for any confounding factors. When attempting to account for them, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, CC analysis, bivariate screening…). This study shows that there is no improvement over the last decade, highlighting the need for recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Mercer, LK, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk of invasive melanoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologics: results from a collaborative project of 11 European biologic registers
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:2, s. 386-391
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Some studies have reported a possible association between exposure to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and an increased risk of melanoma. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of invasive cutaneous melanomas in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), other biologic disease modifying drugs and non-biologic therapy.MethodsEleven biologic registers from nine European countries participated in this collaborative project. According to predefined exposure definitions, cohorts of patients with RA were selected. Using the country-specific general population of each register as reference, age, sex and calendar year standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) of invasive histology-confirmed cutaneous melanoma were calculated within each register. Pooled SIR and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) comparing biologic cohorts to biologic-naïve were calculated across countries by taking the size of the register into account.ResultsOverall 130 315 RA patients with a mean age of 58 years contributing 579 983 person-years were available for the analysis and 287 developed a first melanoma. Pooled SIRs for biologic-naïve, TNFi and rituximab-exposed patients were 1.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.4), 1.2 (0.99 to 1.6) and 1.3 (0.6 to 2.6), respectively. Incidence rates in tocilizumab and abatacept-exposed patients were also not significantly increased. IRR versus biologic-naïve patients were: TNFi 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.6); rituximab 1.2 (0.5 to 2.9).ConclusionsThis large European collaborative project did not confirm an overall increased risk of melanoma following exposure to TNFi.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- Radner, H, et al.
(författare)
-
2017 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in rheumatoid arthritis
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 77:4, s. 476-479
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Personalised medicine, new discoveries and studies on rare exposures or outcomes require large samples that are increasingly difficult for any single investigator to obtain. Collaborative work is limited by heterogeneities, both what is being collected and how it is defined. To develop a core set for data collection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) research which (1) allows harmonisation of data collection in future observational studies, (2) acts as a common data model against which existing databases can be mapped and (3) serves as a template for standardised data collection in routine clinical practice to support generation of research-quality data. A multistep, international multistakeholder consensus process was carried out involving voting via online surveys and two face-to-face meetings. A core set of 21 items (‘what to collect’) and their instruments (‘how to collect’) was agreed: age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis of RA, body mass index, smoking, swollen/tender joints, patient/evaluator global, pain, quality of life, function, composite scores, acute phase reactants, serology, structural damage, treatment and comorbidities. The core set should facilitate collaborative research, allow for comparisons across studies and harmonise future data from clinical practice via electronic medical record systems.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Sparks, JA, et al.
(författare)
-
Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 80:9, s. 1137-1146
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsWe analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders.ResultsOf 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity.ConclusionsPeople with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Yeoh, SA, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry
- 2022
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 8:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM).MethodsDemographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with IIM were obtained from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. A 3-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation (and no death) and (3) death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a 4-point ordinal scale: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation with no oxygen (and no death), (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation (and no death) and 4) death.ResultsOf 348 patients, 48% were not hospitalised, 39% were hospitalised (and did not die) and 13% died. Older age (OR=1.59/decade, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.91), high disease activity (OR=3.50, 95% CI 1.25 to 9.83; vs remission), ≥2 comorbidities (OR=2.63, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.98; vs none), prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day (OR=2.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.28; vs no intake) and exposure to rituximab (OR=2.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.72; vs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only) were independently associated with severe COVID-19. In addition to these variables, in the sensitivity analyses, male sex (OR range: 1.65–1.83; vs female) was also significantly associated with severe outcomes, while COVID-19 diagnosis after 1 October 2020 (OR range: 0.51–0.59; vs on/before 15 June 2020) was significantly associated with less severe outcomes, but these associations were not significant in the main model (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59; and OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.00; respectively).ConclusionsThis is the first large registry data on outcomes of COVID-19 in people with IIM. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity burden, high disease activity, prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day and rituximab exposure were associated with severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with IIM.
|
|
