| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Georgiadis, S, et al.
(författare)
-
CAN SINGLE IMPUTATION TECHNIQUES FOR BASDAI COMPONENTS RELIABLY CALCULATE THE COMPOSITE SCORE IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 212-213
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) is a key patient-reported outcome. However, one or more of its components may be missing when recorded in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo determine whether an individual patient’s BASDAI at a given timepoint can be reliably calculated with different single imputation techniques and to explore the impact of the number of missing components and/or differences between missingness of individual components.MethodsReal-life data from axSpA patients receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) from 13 countries in the European Spondyloarthritis (EuroSpA) Research Collaboration Network were utilized [1]. We studied missingness in BASDAI components based on simulations in a complete dataset, where we applied and expanded the approach of Ramiro et al. [2]. After introducing one or more missing components completely at random, BASDAI was calculated from the available components and with three different single imputation techniques: possible middle value (i.e. 50) of the component and mean and median of the available components. Differences between the observed (original) and calculated scores were assessed and correct classification of patients as having BASDAI<40 mm was additionally evaluated. For the setting with one missing component, differences arising between missing one of components 1-4 versus 5-6 were explored. Finally, the performance of imputations in relation to the values of the original score was investigated.ResultsA total of 19,894 axSpA patients with at least one complete BASDAI registration at any timepoint were included. 59,126 complete BASDAI registrations were utilized for the analyses with a mean BASDAI of 38.5 (standard deviation 25.9). Calculating BASDAI from the available components and imputing with mean or median showed similar levels of agreement (Table 1). When allowing one missing component, >90% had a difference of ≤6.9 mm between the original and calculated scores and >95% were correctly classified as BASDAI<40 (Table 1). However, separate analyses of components 1-4 and 5-6 as a function of the BASDAI score suggested that imputing any one of the first four BASDAI components resulted in a level of agreement <90% for specific BASDAI values while imputing one of the stiffness components 5-6 always reached a level of agreement >90% (Figure 1, upper panels). As expected, it was observed that regardless of the BASDAI component set to missing and the imputation technique used, correct classification of patients as BASDAI<40 was less than 95% for values around the cutoff (Figure 1, lower panels).Table 1.Level of agreement between the original and calculated BASDAI and correct classification for BASDAI<40 mmLevel of agreement with Dif≤6.9 mm* (%)Correct classification for BASDAI<40 mm** (%)1 missing componentAvailable93.996.9Value 5073.996.3Mean94.296.8Median93.196.82 missing componentsAvailable83.794.8Value 5040.792.8Mean83.594.8Median82.894.73 missing componentsAvailable71.992.6Value 5028.187.3Mean72.292.6Median69.792.2* The levels of agreement with a difference (Dif) of ≤6.9 mm between the original and calculated scores were based on the half of the smallest detectable change. Agreement of >90% was considered as acceptable. ** Correct classification of >95% was considered as acceptable.Figure 1.Level of agreement between the original and calculated BASDAI and correct classification for BASDAI<40 mm as a function of the original scoreConclusionBASDAI calculation with available components gave similar results to single imputation of missing components with mean or median. Only when missing one of BASDAI components 5 or 6, single imputation techniques can reliably calculate individual BASDAI scores. However, missing any single component value results in misclassification of patients with original BASDAI scores close to 40.References[1]Ørnbjerg et al. (2019). Ann Rheum Dis, 78(11), 1536-1544.[2]Ramiro et al. (2014). Rheumatology, 53(2), 374-376.AcknowledgementsNovartis Pharma AG and IQVIA for supporting the EuroSpA collaboration.Disclosure of InterestsStylianos Georgiadis Grant/research support from: Novartis, Myriam Riek Grant/research support from: Novartis, Christos Polysopoulos Grant/research support from: Novartis, Almut Scherer Grant/research support from: Novartis, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Gareth T. Jones Speakers bureau: Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Amgen, GSK, Merete Lund Hetland Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Medac, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Merck, Celgene, Novartis, Simon Horskjær Rasmussen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Johan K Wallman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, BMS, Anne Gitte Loft Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Karel Pavelka Speakers bureau: Pfizer, MSD, BMS, UCB, Amgen, Egis, Roche, AbbVie, Consultant of: Pfizer, MSD, BMS, UCB, Amgen, Egis, Roche, AbbVie, Jakub Zavada Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Elli-Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Egis, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Elli-Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Egis, UCB, Merih Birlik: None declared, Ayten Yazici Grant/research support from: Roche, Brigitte Michelsen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eirik kristianslund: None declared, Adrian Ciurea Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Michael J. Nissen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssens, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssens, Novartis, Pfizer, Ana Maria Rodrigues Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Gary Macfarlane Grant/research support from: GSK, Anna-Mari Hokkanen Grant/research support from: MSD, Heikki Relas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Pfizer, UCB, Viatris, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Pfizer, UCB, Viatris, Catalin Codreanu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Corina Mogosan: None declared, Ziga Rotar Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, MSD, Medis, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lek, Janssen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, MSD, Medis, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Lek, Janssen, Matija Tomsic Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sandoz-Lek, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sandoz-Lek, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen, Novartis, Consultant of: Amgen, Novartis, Arni Jon Geirsson: None declared, Pasoon Hellamand Grant/research support from: Novartis, Marleen G.H. van de Sande Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, Abbvie, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, Abbvie, Isabel Castrejon: None declared, Manuel Pombo-Suarez Consultant of: Abbvie, MSD, Roche, Bruno Frediani: None declared, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Ornbjerg, LM, et al.
(författare)
-
SECULAR TRENDS IN BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS, TREATMENT RETENTION AND RESPONSE RATES IN 27189 BIO-NAIVE AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS INITIATING TNFI - RESULTS FROM THE EUROSPA COLLABORATION
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 217-218
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Knowledge of changes over time in baseline characteristics and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) response in bio-naïve axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients treated in routine care is limited.Objectives:To investigate secular trends in baseline characteristics and retention, remission and response rates in axSpA patients initiating a first TNFi.Methods:Prospectively collected data on bio-naïve axSpA patients starting TNFi in routine care from 15 European countries were pooled. According to year of TNFi initiation, three groups were defined a priori based on bDMARD availability: Group A (1999–2008), Group B (2009–2014) and Group C (2015–2018). Retention rates (Kaplan-Meier), crude and LUNDEX adjusted1 remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <20) and response (ASDAS Major and Clinically Important Improvement (MI/CII), BASDAI 50) rates were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. No statistical comparisons were made.Results:In total, 27189 axSpA patients were included (5945, 11255 and 9989 in groups A, B and C).At baseline, patients in group A were older, had longer disease duration and a larger proportion of male and HLA-B27 positive patients compared to B and C, whereas disease activity was similar across groups.Retention rates at 6, 12 and 24 months were highest in group A (88%/81%/71%) but differed little between B (84%/74%/64%) and C (85%/76%/67%).In all groups, median ASDAS and BASDAI had decreased markedly at 6 months (Table 1). The ASDAS values at 12 and 24 months and BASDAI at 24 months were higher in group A compared with groups B and C. Similarly, crude remission and response rates were lowest in group A. After adjustments for drug retention (LUNDEX), remission and response rates showed less pronounced between-group differences regarding ASDAS measures and no relevant differences regarding BASDAI measures.Conclusion:Nowadays, axSpA patients initiating TNFi are younger with shorter disease duration and more frequently female and HLA-B27 negative than previously, while baseline disease activity is unchanged. Drug retention rates have decreased, whereas crude remission and response rates have increased. This may indicate expanded indication but also a stable disease activity threshold for TNFi initiation over time, an increased focus on targeting disease remission and more available treatment options.References:[1]Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54: 600-6.Table 1.Secular trends in baseline characteristics, treatment retention, remission and response rates in European axSpA patients initiating a 1st TNFiBaseline characteristicsGroup A(1999–2008)Group B(2009–2014)Group C(2015–2018)Age, years, median (IQR)57 (49–66)51 (42–60)46 (37–56)Male, %666057HLA-B27, %877772Years since diagnosis, median (IQR)5 (1–12)2 (0–8)2 (0–7)Smokers, %232425ASDAS, median (IQR)3.5 (2.8–4.1)3.4 (2.8–4.1)3.5 (2.8–4.1)BASDAI, median, (IQR)57 (42–71)59 (43–72)57 (41–71)TNFi drug, % (Adalimumab /Etanercept / Infliximab /Certolizumab / Golimumab)22 / 35 / 43 / 0 / 037 / 21 / 20 / 4 / 1827 / 28 / 24 / 8 / 13Follow up6 months12 months24 monthsGr AGr BGr CGr AGr BGr CGr AGr BGr CRetention rates, %, (95% CI)88 (88–89)84 (83–85)85 (84–86)81 (80–82)74 (74–75)76 (75–76)71 (70–72)64 (63–65)67 (66–68)ASDAS, median, (IQR)1.8 (1.2–2.8)1.9 (1.2–2.8)1.8 (1.2–2.6)1.9 (1.3–2.6)1.7 (1.2–2.5)1.6 (1.1–2.4)1.9 (1.4–2.6)1.7 (1.1–2.4)1.5 (1.1–2.2)ASDAS inactive disease, %, c/L28 / 2528 / 2430 / 2624 / 1932 / 2434 / 2623 / 1634 / 2039 / 23ASDAS CII, %, c/L57 / 5159 / 5063 / 5461 / 5063 / 4767 / 5159 / 4168 / 4074 / 45ASDAS MI, %, c/L31 / 2732 / 2737 / 3232 / 2637 / 2741 / 3130 / 2042 / 2546 / 28BASDAI, median, (IQR)23 (10–40)26 (11–48)24 (10–44)21 (10–38)23 (10–42)20 (8–39)22 (9–40)20 (8–39)16 (6–35)BASDAI remission, %, c/L44 / 4040 / 3443 / 3645 / 3645 / 3450 / 3844 / 3048 / 2956 / 34BASDAI 50 response, %, c/L53 / 4750 / 4253 / 4557 / 4656 / 4258 / 4457 / 3960 / 3563 / 38Gr, Group; c/L, crude/LUNDEX adjusted.Acknowledgements:Novartis Pharma AG and IQVIA for supporting the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network.Disclosure of Interests:Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Sara Nysom Christiansen Speakers bureau: BMS and GE, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Simon Horskjær Rasmussen: None declared, Anne Gitte Loft Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulf Lindström: None declared, Jakub Zavada: None declared, Florenzo Iannone: None declared, Fatos Onen: None declared, Michael J. Nissen Speakers bureau: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, and Pfizer, Brigitte Michelsen Consultant of: Novartis, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Gary Macfarlane Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Dan Nordström Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Manuel Pombo-Suarez: None declared, Catalin Codreanu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Matija Tomsic Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen and Novartis, Johan Askling: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Biogen, AbbVie, Karel Pavelka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, Egis, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, Egis, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Elisa Gremese: None declared, Nurullah Akkoc: None declared, Adrian Ciurea Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eirik kristianslund: None declared, Anabela Barcelos: None declared, Gareth T. Jones Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Celgene, Amgen, GSK, Anna-Mari Hokkanen Grant/research support from: MSD, Carlos Sánchez-Piedra: None declared, Ruxandra Ionescu Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim Eli-Lilly,Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Ziga Rotar Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Marleen G.H. van de Sande: None declared, Arni Jon Geirsson: None declared, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Schering-Plough, Roche, Takeda, UCB and Wyeth, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Schering-Plough, Roche, Takeda, UCB and Wyeth, Merete L. Hetland Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis.
|
|
| 14. |
- Ornbjerg, LM, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment response and drug retention rates in 24 195 biologic-naïve patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating TNFi treatment: routine care data from 12 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 78:11, s. 1536-1544
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To study drug retention and response rates in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) initiating a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).MethodsData from 12 European registries, prospectively collected in routine care, were pooled. TNFi retention rates (Kaplan-Meier statistics), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) Inactive disease (<1.3), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <40 mm and Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society responses (ASAS 20/40) were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months.ResultsA first TNFi was initiated in 24 195 axSpA patients. Heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between registries was observed. Twelve-month retention was 80% (95% CI 79% to 80%), ranging from 71% to 94% across registries. At 6 months, ASDAS Inactive disease/BASDAI<40 rates were 33%/72% (LUNDEX-adjusted: 27%/59%), ASAS 20/40 response rates 64%/49% (LUNDEX-adjusted 52%/40%). In patients initiating first TNFi after 2009, 6097 patients was registered to fulfil ASAS criteria for axSpA, 2935 was registered to fulfil modified New York Criteria for Ankylosing Spondylitis and 1178 patients was registered as having non-radiographic axSpA. In nr-axSpA patients, we observed lower 12-month retention rates (73% (70%–76%)) and lower 6-month LUNDEX adjusted response rates (ASDAS Inactive disease/BASDAI40 20%/50%, ASAS 20/40 45%/33%). For patients initiating first TNFi after 2014, 12-month retention rate, but not 6-month response rate, was numerically higher compared with patients initiating TNFi in 2009–2014.ConclusionA large European database of patients with axSpA initiating a first TNFi treatment in routine care, demonstrated that 27% of patients achieved ASDAS inactive disease after 6 months, while 59% achieved BASDAI <40. Four of five patients continued treatment after 1 year.
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Abe, O, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials
- 2005
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 365:9472, s. 1687-1717
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Quinquennial overviews (1985-2000) of the randomised trials in early breast cancer have assessed the 5-year and 10-year effects of various systemic adjuvant therapies on breast cancer recurrence and survival. Here, we report the 10-year and 15-year effects. Methods Collaborative meta-analyses were undertaken of 194 unconfounded randomised trials of adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy that began by 1995. Many trials involved CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil), anthracycline-based combinations such as FAC (fluorouracil, doxombicin, cyclophosphamide) or FEC (fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide), tamoxifen, or ovarian suppression: none involved taxanes, trastuzumab, raloxifene, or modem aromatase inhibitors. Findings Allocation to about 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy (eg, with FAC or FEC) reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by about 38% (SE 5) for women younger than 50 years of age when diagnosed and by about 20% (SE 4) for those of age 50-69 years when diagnosed, largely irrespective of the use of tamoxifen and of oestrogen receptor (ER) status, nodal status, or other tumour characteristics. Such regimens are significantly (2p=0 . 0001 for recurrence, 2p<0 . 00001 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than CMF chemotherapy. Few women of age 70 years or older entered these chemotherapy trials. For ER-positive disease only, allocation to about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by 31% (SE 3), largely irrespective of the use of chemotherapy and of age (<50, 50-69, &GE; 70 years), progesterone receptor status, or other tumour characteristics. 5 years is significantly (2p<0 . 00001 for recurrence, 2p=0 . 01 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than just 1-2 years of tamoxifen. For ER-positive tumours, the annual breast cancer mortality rates are similar during years 0-4 and 5-14, as are the proportional reductions in them by 5 years of tamoxifen, so the cumulative reduction in mortality is more than twice as big at 15 years as at 5 years after diagnosis. These results combine six meta-analyses: anthracycline-based versus no chemotherapy (8000 women); CMF-based versus no chemotherapy (14 000); anthracycline-based versus CMF-based chemotherapy (14 000); about 5 years of tamoxifen versus none (15 000); about 1-2 years of tamoxifen versus none (33 000); and about 5 years versus 1-2 years of tamoxifen (18 000). Finally, allocation to ovarian ablation or suppression (8000 women) also significantly reduces breast cancer mortality, but appears to do so only in the absence of other systemic treatments. For middle-aged women with ER-positive disease (the commonest type of breast cancer), the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the next 15 years would be approximately halved by 6 months of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (with a combination such as FAC or FEC) followed by 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. For, if mortality reductions of 38% (age <50 years) and 20% (age 50-69 years) from such chemotherapy were followed by a further reduction of 31% from tamoxifen in the risks that remain, the final mortality reductions would be 57% and 45%, respectively (and, the trial results could well have been somewhat stronger if there had been full compliance with the allocated treatments). Overall survival would be comparably improved, since these treatments have relatively small effects on mortality from the aggregate of all other causes. Interpretation Some of the widely practicable adjuvant drug treatments that were being tested in the 1980s, which substantially reduced 5-year recurrence rates (but had somewhat less effect on 5-year mortality rates), also substantially reduce 15-year mortality rates. Further improvements in long-term survival could well be available from newer drugs, or better use of older drugs.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Christiansen, SN, et al.
(författare)
-
SECULAR TRENDS IN BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS, TREATMENT RETENTION AND RESPONSE RATES IN 17453 BIONAIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS INITIATING TNFI - RESULTS FROM THE EUROSPA COLLABORATION
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 131-132
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Knowledge of changes over time in baseline characteristics and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) response in bionaïve psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients treated in routine care is limited.Objectives:To investigate secular trends in baseline characteristics and retention, remission and response rates in PsA patients initiating a first TNFi.Methods:Prospectively collected data on bionaïve PsA patients starting TNFi in routine care from 15 European countries were pooled. According to year of TNFi initiation, three groups were defined a priori based on bDMARD availability: Group A (1999–2008), Group B (2009–2014) and Group C (2015–2018).Retention rates (Kaplan-Meier), crude and LUNDEX adjusted1 remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS28) <2.6, 28-joint Disease Activity index for PsA (DAPSA28) ≤4, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤2.8) and ACR50 response rates were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. No statistical comparisons were made.Results:A total of 17453 PsA patients were included (4069, 7551 and 5833 in groups A, B and C).Patients in group A were older and had longer disease duration compared to B and C. Retention rates at 6, 12 and 24 months were highest in group A (88%/77%/64%) but differed little between B (83%/69%/55%) and C (84%/70%/56%).Baseline disease activity was higher in group A than in B and C (DAS28: 4.6/4.3/4.0, DAPSA28: 29.9/25.7/24.0, CDAI: 21.8/20.0/18.6), and this persisted at 6 and 12 months. Crude and LUNDEX adjusted remission rates at 6 and 12 months tended to be lowest in group A, although crude/LUNDEX adjusted ACR50 response rates at all time points were highest in group A. At 24 months, disease activity and remission rates were similar in the three groups (Table).Table 1.Secular trends in baseline characteristics, treatment retention, remission and response rates in European PsA patients initiating a 1st TNFiBaseline characteristicsGroup A(1999–2008)Group B(2009–2014)Group C(2015–2018)Age, median (IQR)62 (54–72)58 (49–67)54 (45–62)Male, %514847Years since diagnosis, median (IQR)5 (2–10)3 (1–9)3 (1–8)Smokers, %161717DAS28, median (IQR)4.6 (3.7–5.3)4.3 (3.4–5.1)4.0 (3.2–4.8)DAPSA28, median (IQR)29.9 (19.3–41.8)25.7 (17.2–38.1)24.0 (16.1–35.5)CDAI, median (IQR)21.8 (14.0–31.1)20.0 (13.0–29.0)18.6 (12.7–26.1)TNFi drug, % (Adalimumab / Etanercept / Infliximab / Certolizumab / Golimumab)27 / 43 / 30 / 0 / 036 / 31 / 14 / 5 / 1421 / 40 / 21 / 8 / 10Follow up6 months12 months24 monthsGr AGr BGr CGr AGr BGr CGr AGr BGr CRetention rates, % (95% CI)88 (87–89)83 (82–84)84 (83–85)79 (78–80)72 (71–73)72 (71–73)68 (67–69)60 (59–61)60 (59–62)DAS28, median (IQR)2.7 (1.9–3.6)2.4 (1.7–3.4)2.3 (1.7–3.2)2.5 (1.8–3.4)2.2 (1.6–3.1)2.1 (1.6–2.9)2.1 (1.6–3.1)2.0 (1.6–2.9)1.9 (1.5–2.6)DAPSA28, median (IQR)10.6 (4.8–20.0)9.5 (3.9–18.3)8.7 (3.6–15.9)9.1 (4.1–17.8)7.7 (3.1–15.4)7.6 (2.9–14.4)6.7 (2.7–13.7)6.6 (2.7–13.5)5.9 (2.4–11.8)CDAI, median (IQR)7.8 (3.0–15.2)8.0 (3.0–15.0)6.4 (2.6–12.2)6.4 (2.5–13.0)6.2 (2.5–12.1)5.8 (2.2–11.4)5.0 (2.0–11.0)5.5 (2.0–11.2)5.0 (2.0–9.0)DAS28 remission, %, c/L47 / 4255 / 4661 / 5153 / 4362 / 4566 / 4864 / 4268 / 3775 / 41DAPSA28 remission, %, c/L22 / 1926 / 2228 / 2325 / 2031 / 2232 / 2336 / 2334 / 1938 / 21CDAI remission, %, c/L23 / 2123 / 1926 / 2227 / 2127 / 2029 / 2134 / 2231 / 1735 / 19ACR50 response, %, c/L26 / 2322 / 1824 / 2027 / 2223 / 1721 / 1523 / 1518 / 1014 / 8Gr, Group; c/L, crude/LUNDEX.Conclusion:Over the past 20 years, patient age, disease duration and disease activity level at the start of the first TNFi in PsA patients have decreased. Furthermore, TNFi retention rates have decreased while remission rates have increased, especially remission rates within the first year of treatment. These findings may reflect a greater awareness of early diagnosis in PsA patients, a lowered threshold for initiating TNFi and the possibility for earlier switching in patients with inadequate treatment response.References:[1]Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54: 600-6.Acknowledgements:Novartis Pharma AG and IQVIA for supporting the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network.Disclosure of Interests:Sara Nysom Christiansen Speakers bureau: BMS and GE, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Simon Horskjær Rasmussen: None declared, Anne Gitte Loft Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Johan K Wallman Consultant of: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and BMS, Brigitte Michelsen Consultant of: Novartis, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Michael J. Nissen Speakers bureau: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, and Pfizer, Jakub Zavada: None declared, Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Manuel Pombo-Suarez: None declared, Kari Eklund: None declared, Matija Tomsic Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen and Novartis, İsmail Sari: None declared, Catalin Codreanu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Egis, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Biogen, AbbVie, Marco Sebastiani: None declared, Karen Minde Fagerli: None declared, Burkhard Moeller: None declared, Karel Pavelka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, Egis, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, Egis, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Anabela Barcelos: None declared, Carlos Sánchez-Piedra: None declared, Heikki Relas: None declared, Ziga Rotar Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Thorvardur Love: None declared, Servet Akar: None declared, Ruxandra Ionescu Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim Eli-Lilly,Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Gary Macfarlane Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Marleen G.H. van de Sande: None declared, Merete L. Hetland Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis., Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Schering-Plough, Roche, Takeda, UCB and Wyeth, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Centocor, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Schering-Plough, Roche, Takeda, UCB and Wyeth
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
