| 1. |
- Sabatini, F. M., et al.
(författare)
-
sPlotOpen - An environmentally balanced, open-access, global dataset of vegetation plots
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Global Ecology and Biogeography. - : Wiley. - 1466-822X .- 1466-8238.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Motivation Assessing biodiversity status and trends in plant communities is critical for understanding, quantifying and predicting the effects of global change on ecosystems. Vegetation plots record the occurrence or abundance of all plant species co-occurring within delimited local areas. This allows species absences to be inferred, information seldom provided by existing global plant datasets. Although many vegetation plots have been recorded, most are not available to the global research community. A recent initiative, called 'sPlot', compiled the first global vegetation plot database, and continues to grow and curate it. The sPlot database, however, is extremely unbalanced spatially and environmentally, and is not open-access. Here, we address both these issues by (a) resampling the vegetation plots using several environmental variables as sampling strata and (b) securing permission from data holders of 105 local-to-regional datasets to openly release data. We thus present sPlotOpen, the largest open-access dataset of vegetation plots ever released. sPlotOpen can be used to explore global diversity at the plant community level, as ground truth data in remote sensing applications, or as a baseline for biodiversity monitoring. Main types of variable contained Vegetation plots (n = 95,104) recording cover or abundance of naturally co-occurring vascular plant species within delimited areas. sPlotOpen contains three partially overlapping resampled datasets (c. 50,000 plots each), to be used as replicates in global analyses. Besides geographical location, date, plot size, biome, elevation, slope, aspect, vegetation type, naturalness, coverage of various vegetation layers, and source dataset, plot-level data also include community-weighted means and variances of 18 plant functional traits from the TRY Plant Trait Database. Spatial location and grain Global, 0.01-40,000 m(2). Time period and grain 1888-2015, recording dates. Major taxa and level of measurement 42,677 vascular plant taxa, plot-level records. Software format Three main matrices (.csv), relationally linked.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 79:6, s. 685-699
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.MethodsAn international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.ResultsThe task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.ConclusionsThese updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Ehlers, L, et al.
(författare)
-
2018 EULAR recommendations for a core data set to support observational research and clinical care in giant cell arteritis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 78:9, s. 1160-1166
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Giant cell arteritis (GCA) represents the most common form of primary systemic vasculitis and is frequently associated with comorbidities related to the disease itself or induced by the treatment. Systematically collected data on disease course, treatment and outcomes of GCA remain scarce. The aim of this EULAR Task Force was to identify a core set of items which can easily be collected by experienced clinicians, in order to facilitate collaborative research into the course and outcomes of GCA. A multidisciplinary EULAR task force group of 20 experts including rheumatologists, internists, epidemiologists and patient representatives was assembled. During a 1-day meeting, breakout groups discussed items from a previously compiled collection of parameters describing GCA status and disease course. Feedback from breakout groups was further discussed. Final consensus was achieved by means of several rounds of email discussions after the meeting. A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to determine a core set of parameters including the level of agreement. 117 parameters were regarded as relevant. Potential items were subdivided into the following categories: General, demographics, GCA-related signs and symptoms, other medical conditions and treatment. Possible instruments and assessment intervals were proposed for documentation of each item. To facilitate implementation of the recommendations in clinical care and clinical research, a minimum core set of 50 parameters was agreed. This proposed core set intends to ensure that relevant items from different GCA registries and databases can be compared for the dual purposes of facilitating clinical research and improving clinical care.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- 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.
|
|
| 12. |
- 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.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- 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.
|
|
| 15. |
- Courvoisier, D, et al.
(författare)
-
POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 124-125
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Comparing drug effectiveness in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias bias (patients who stop treatment no longer contribute information, which may overestimate true drug effectiveness).Objectives:To present points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness with observational data in rheumatology (EULAR-funded taskforce).Methods:The task force comprises 18 experts: epidemiologists, statisticians, rheumatologists, patients, and health professionals.Results:A systematic literature review of methods currently used for comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology and a statistical simulation study were used to inform the PtC (table). Overarching principles focused on defining treatment effectiveness and promoting robust and transparent epidemiological and statistical methods increase the trustworthiness of the results.Points to considerReporting of comparative effectiveness observational studies must follow the STROBE guidelinesAuthors should prepare a statistical analysis plan in advanceTo provide a more complete picture of effectiveness, several outcomes across multiple health domains should be comparedLost to follow-up from the study sample must be reported by the exposure of interestThe proportion of patients who stop and/or change therapy over time, as well as the reasons for treatment discontinuation must be reportedCovariates should be chosen based on subject matter knowledge and model selection should be justifiedThe study baseline should be at treatment initiation and a description of how covariate measurements relate to baseline should be includedThe analysis should be based on all patients starting a treatment and not limited to patients remaining on treatment at a certain time pointWhen treatment discontinuation occurs before the time of outcome assessment, this attrition should be taken into account in the analysis.Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore the influence of assumptions related to missingness, particularly in case of attritionConclusion:The increased use of real-world comparative effectiveness studies makes it imperative to reduce divergent or contradictory results due to biases. Having clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of these studies should promote agreement of observational studies, and improve studies’ trustworthiness, which may also facilitate meta-analysis of observational data.Disclosure of Interests:Delphine Courvoisier: None declared, Kim Lauper: None declared, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific
|
|
| 16. |
- Dengler, Juergen, et al.
(författare)
-
GrassPlot - a database of multi-scale plant diversity in Palaearctic grasslands
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Phytocoenologia. - : Schweizerbart. - 0340-269X. ; 48:3, s. 331-347
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- GrassPlot is a collaborative vegetation-plot database organised by the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and listed in the Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD ID EU-00-003). GrassPlot collects plot records (releves) from grasslands and other open habitats of the Palaearctic biogeographic realm. It focuses on precisely delimited plots of eight standard grain sizes (0.0001; 0.001;... 1,000 m(2)) and on nested-plot series with at least four different grain sizes. The usage of GrassPlot is regulated through Bylaws that intend to balance the interests of data contributors and data users. The current version (v. 1.00) contains data for approximately 170,000 plots of different sizes and 2,800 nested-plot series. The key components are richness data and metadata. However, most included datasets also encompass compositional data. About 14,000 plots have near-complete records of terricolous bryophytes and lichens in addition to vascular plants. At present, GrassPlot contains data from 36 countries throughout the Palaearctic, spread across elevational gradients and major grassland types. GrassPlot with its multi-scale and multi-taxon focus complements the larger international vegetationplot databases, such as the European Vegetation Archive (EVA) and the global database " sPlot". Its main aim is to facilitate studies on the scale-and taxon-dependency of biodiversity patterns and drivers along macroecological gradients. GrassPlot is a dynamic database and will expand through new data collection coordinated by the elected Governing Board. We invite researchers with suitable data to join GrassPlot. Researchers with project ideas addressable with GrassPlot data are welcome to submit proposals to the Governing Board.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Gossec, L, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR points to consider for the use of big data in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 79:1, s. 69-76
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tremendous opportunities for health research have been unlocked by the recent expansion of big data and artificial intelligence. However, this is an emergent area where recommendations for optimal use and implementation are needed. The objective of these European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) points to consider is to guide the collection, analysis and use of big data in rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders (RMDs).MethodsA multidisciplinary task force of 14 international experts was assembled with expertise from a range of disciplines including computer science and artificial intelligence. Based on a literature review of the current status of big data in RMDs and in other fields of medicine, points to consider were formulated. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were allocated and mean levels of agreement of the task force members were calculated.ResultsThree overarching principles and 10 points to consider were formulated. The overarching principles address ethical and general principles for dealing with big data in RMDs. The points to consider cover aspects of data sources and data collection, privacy by design, data platforms, data sharing and data analyses, in particular through artificial intelligence and machine learning. Furthermore, the points to consider state that big data is a moving field in need of adequate reporting of methods and benchmarking, careful data interpretation and implementation in clinical practice.ConclusionThese EULAR points to consider discuss essential issues and provide a framework for the use of big data in RMDs.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
- Kedra, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Current status of use of big data and artificial intelligence in RMDs: a systematic literature review informing EULAR recommendations
- 2019
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 5:2, s. e001004-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To assess the current use of big data and artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsA systematic literature review was performed in PubMed MEDLINE in November 2018, with key words referring to big data, AI and RMDs. All original reports published in English were analysed. A mirror literature review was also performed outside of RMDs on the same number of articles. The number of data analysed, data sources and statistical methods used (traditional statistics, AI or both) were collected. The analysis compared findings within and beyond the field of RMDs.ResultsOf 567 articles relating to RMDs, 55 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed, as well as 55 articles in other medical fields. The mean number of data points was 746 million (range 2000–5 billion) in RMDs, and 9.1 billion (range 100 000–200 billion) outside of RMDs. Data sources were varied: in RMDs, 26 (47%) were clinical, 8 (15%) biological and 16 (29%) radiological. Both traditional and AI methods were used to analyse big data (respectively, 10 (18%) and 45 (82%) in RMDs and 8 (15%) and 47 (85%) out of RMDs). Machine learning represented 97% of AI methods in RMDs and among these methods, the most represented was artificial neural network (20/44 articles in RMDs).ConclusionsBig data sources and types are varied within the field of RMDs, and methods used to analyse big data were heterogeneous. These findings will inform a European League Against Rheumatism taskforce on big data in RMDs.
|
|
| 22. |
- Lauper, K, et al.
(författare)
-
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW TO INFORM THE EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN ANALYSING AND REPORTING COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA IN RHEUMATOLOGY
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 123-124
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Comparative effectiveness studies using observational data are increasingly used. Despite their high potential for bias, there are no detailed recommendations on how these studies should best be analysed and reported in rheumatology.Objectives:To conduct a systematic literature review of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology to inform the EULAR task force developing points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data.Methods:All original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies of ≥100 patients published in key rheumatology journals (Scientific Citation Index > 2) between 1.01.2008 and 25.03.2019 available in Ovid MEDLINE® were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts and independently checked to ensure sufficient agreement has been reached. The main information extracted included the types of outcomes used to assess effectiveness, and the types of analyses performed, focusing particularly on confounding and attrition.Results:9969 abstracts were screened, with 218 articles proceeding to full-text extraction (Figure 1), representing a number of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Agreement between the two reviewers for the first 1000 abstracts was 92.7% with a kappa of 0.6. The majority of the studies used several outcomes to evaluate effectiveness (Figure 2A). Most of the studies did not explain how they addressed missing data on the covariates (70%) (Figure 2B). When addressed (30%), 44% used complete case analysis and 10% last observation carried forward (LOCF). 25% of studies did not adjust for confounding factors and there was no clear correlation between the number of factors used to adjust and the number of participants in the studies. An important number of studies selected covariates using bivariate screening and/or stepwise selection. 86% of the studies did not acknowledge attrition (Figure 2C). When trying to correct for attrition (14%), 38% used non-responder (NR) imputation, 24% used LUNDEX1, a form of NR imputation, and 21% LOCF.Conclusion:Most of studies used multiple outcomes. However, the vast majority did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a quarter did not adjust for any confounding factors. Moreover, when attempting to account for attrition, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, complete case analysis, bivariate screening…). This systematic review confirms the need for the development of recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.References:[1]Kristensen et al. A&R. 2006 Feb;54(2):600-6.Acknowledgments:Support of the Standing Committee on Epidemiology and Health Services ResearchDisclosure of Interests:Kim Lauper: None declared, Joanna KEDRA: None declared, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Thomas Frisell: None declared, Kimme Hyrich Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Florenzo Iannone Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, MSD, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Lykke Midtbøll Ørnbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ziga Rotar Consultant of: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Speakers bureau: Speaker and consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Medis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi., Maria Jose Santos Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Anja Strangfeld Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Pfizer: Unrestricted research grant, Eli-Lilly: Unrestricted research grant, Consultant of: Sanofi, AB2BIO, Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Sytske Anne Bergstra: None declared, Delphine Courvoisier: None declared
|
|
| 23. |
- 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.
|
|
| 24. |
- Pistocchi, Alberto, et al.
(författare)
-
European scale assessment of the potential of ozonation and activated carbon treatment to reduce micropollutant emissions with wastewater
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 848
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Micropollutants (MPs) in wastewater pose a growing concern for their potential adverse effects on the receiving aquatic environment, and some countries have started requiring that wastewater treatment plants remove them to a certain extent. Broad spectrum advanced treatment processes, such as ozonation, activated carbon or their combination, are expected to yield a significant reduction in the toxicity of effluents. Here we quantify the reduction of effluent toxicity potentially achieved by implementing these advanced treatment solutions in a selection of European wastewater treatment plants. To this end, we refer to a list of “total pollution proxy substances” (TPPS) composed of 1337 chemicals commonly found in wastewater effluents according to a compilation of datasets of measured concentrations. We consider these substances as an approximation of the “chemical universe” impinging on the European wastewater system. We evaluate the fate of the TPPS in conventional and advanced treatment plants using a compilation of experimental physicochemical properties that describe their sorption, volatilization and biodegradation during activated sludge treatment, as well as known removal efficiency in ozonation and activated carbon treatment, while filling the gaps through in silico prediction models.We estimate that the discharge of micropollutants with wastewater effluents in the European Union has a cumulative MP toxicity to the environment equal to the discharge of untreated wastewater of ca. 160 million population equivalents (PE), i.e. about 30 % of the generated wastewater in the EU. If all plants above a capacity of 100,000 PE were equipped with advanced treatment, we show that this load would be reduced to about 95 million PE. In addition, implementing advanced treatment in wastewater plants above 10,000 PE discharging to water bodies with an average dilution ratio smaller than 10 would yield a widespread improvement in terms of exposure of freshwater ecosystems to micropollutants, almost halving the part of the stream network exposed to the highest toxic risks.Our analysis provides background for a cost-effectiveness appraisal of advanced treatment “at the end of the pipe”, which could lead to optimized interventions. This should not be regarded as a stand-alone solution, but as a complement to policies for the control of emissions at the source for the most problematic MPs.
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
- Smolen, JS, et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:6, s. 960-977
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to—or adding—another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
- Courvoisier, D. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients after Initiation of a New Biologic Agent : Trajectories of Disease Activity in a Large Multinational Cohort Study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: EBioMedicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 2352-3964. ; 11, s. 302-306
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often heterogeneous. We aimed to identify types of disease activity trajectories following the initiation of a new biologic DMARD (bDMARD). Methods Pooled analysis of nine national registries of patients with diagnosis of RA, who initiated Abatacept and had at least two measures of disease activity (DAS28). We used growth mixture models to identify groups of patients with similar courses of treatment response, and examined these patients’ characteristics and effectiveness outcomes. Findings We identified three types of treatment response trajectories: ‘gradual responders’ (GR; 3576 patients, 91·7%) had a baseline mean DAS28 of 4·1 and progressive improvement over time; ‘rapid responders’ (RR; 219 patients, 5·6%) had higher baseline DAS28 and rapid improvement in disease activity; ‘inadequate responders’ (IR; 103 patients, 2·6%) had high DAS28 at baseline (5·1) and progressive worsening in disease activity. They were similar in baseline characteristics. Drug discontinuation for ineffectiveness was shorter among inadequate responders (p = 0.03), and EULAR good or moderate responses at 1 year was much higher among ‘rapid responders’ (p < 0.001). Interpretation Clinical information and baseline clinical characteristics do not allow a reliable prediction of which trajectory the patients will follow after bDMARD initiation.
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
- Dulio, Valeria, et al.
(författare)
-
Beyond target chemicals : updating the NORMAN prioritisation scheme to support the EU chemicals strategy with semi-quantitative suspect/non-target screening data
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Environmental Sciences Europe. - : Springer Nature. - 2190-4707 .- 2190-4715. ; 36:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Prioritisation of chemical pollutants is a major challenge for environmental managers and decision-makers alike, which is essential to help focus the limited resources available for monitoring and mitigation actions on the most relevant chemicals. This study extends the original NORMAN prioritisation scheme beyond target chemicals, presenting the integration of semi-quantitative data from retrospective suspect screening and expansion of existing exposure and risk indicators. The scheme utilises data retrieved automatically from the NORMAN Database System (NDS), including candidate substances for prioritisation, target and suspect screening data, ecotoxicological effect data, physico-chemical data and other properties. Two complementary workflows using target and suspect screening monitoring data are applied to first group the substances into six action categories and then rank the substances using exposure, hazard and risk indicators. The results from the ‘target’ and ‘suspect screening’ workflows can then be combined as multiple lines of evidence to support decision-making on regulatory and research actions.Results: As a proof-of-concept, the new scheme was applied to a combined dataset of target and suspect screening data. To this end, > 65,000 substances on the NDS, of which 2579 substances supported by target wastewater monitoring data, were retrospectively screened in 84 effluent wastewater samples, totalling > 11 million data points. The final prioritisation results identified 677 substances as high priority for further actions, 7455 as medium priority and 326 with potentially lower priority for actions. Among the remaining substances, ca. 37,000 substances should be considered of medium priority with uncertainty, while it was not possible to conclude for 19,000 substances due to insufficient information from target monitoring and uncertainty in the identification from suspect screening. A high degree of agreement was observed between the categories assigned via target analysis and suspect screening-based prioritisation. Suspect screening was a valuable complementary approach to target analysis, helping to prioritise thousands of substances that are insufficiently investigated in current monitoring programmes.Conclusions: This updated prioritisation workflow responds to the increasing use of suspect screening techniques. It can be adapted to different environmental compartments and can support regulatory obligations, including the identification of specific pollutants in river basins and the marine environments, as well as the confirmation of environmental occurrence levels predicted by modelling tools. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
- Gottenberg, J. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Brief Report : Association of Rheumatoid Factor and Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Positivity with Better Effectiveness of Abatacept: Results from the Pan-European Registry Analysis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Arthritis & Rheumatology. - : Wiley. - 2326-5191. ; 68:6, s. 1346-1352
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To investigate the role of rheumatoid factor (RF) status and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status as predictors of abatacept (ABA) effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted a pooled analysis of data from 9 observational RA registries in Europe (ARTIS [Sweden], ATTRA [Czech Republic], BIOBADASER [Spain], DANBIO [Denmark], GISEA [Italy], NOR-DMARD [Norway], ORA [France], Reuma.pt [Portugal], and SCQM-RA [Switzerland]). Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RA, initiation of ABA treatment, and available information on RF and/or ACPA status. The primary end point was continuation of ABA treatment. Secondary end points were ABA discontinuation for ineffectiveness or adverse events and response rates at 1 year (good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism criteria with LUNDEX adjustment for treatment continuation). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the study end points in relation to RF and ACPA status were calculated. Results We identified 2,942 patients with available data on RA-associated autoantibodies; data on RF status were available for 2,787 patients (77.0% of whom were RF positive), and data on ACPA status were available for 1,903 patients (71.3% of whom were ACPA positive). Even after adjustment for sociodemographic and disease- and treatment-related confounders, RF and ACPA positivity were each associated with a lower risk of ABA discontinuation for any reason (HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.69-0.90], P <0.001 and HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.68-0.90], P <0.001, respectively), compared to RF-negative and ACPA-negative patients. Similar associations with RF and ACPA were observed for discontinuation of ABA treatment due to ineffectiveness, with HRs of 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.84) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.88), respectively (both P <0.001). Conclusion Our results strongly suggest that positivity for RF or ACPA is associated with better effectiveness of ABA therapy.
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
- Mongin, D, et al.
(författare)
-
Accounting for missing data caused by drug cessation in observational comparative effectiveness research: a simulation study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 81:5, s. 729-736
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To assess the performance of statistical methods used to compare the effectiveness between drugs in an observational setting in the presence of attrition.MethodsIn this simulation study, we compared the estimations of low disease activity (LDA) at 1 year produced by complete case analysis (CC), last observation carried forward (LOCF), LUNDEX, non-responder imputation (NRI), inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple imputations of the outcome. All methods were adjusted for confounders. The reasons to stop the treatments were included in the multiple imputation method (confounder-adjusted response rate with attrition correction, CARRAC) and were either included (IPW2) or not (IPW1) in the IPW method. A realistic simulation data set was generated from a real-world data collection. The amount of missing data caused by attrition and its dependence on the ‘true’ value of the data missing were varied to assess the robustness of each method to these changes.ResultsLUNDEX and NRI strongly underestimated the absolute LDA difference between two treatments, and their estimates were highly sensitive to the amount of attrition. IPW1 and CC overestimated the absolute LDA difference between the two treatments and the overestimation increased with increasing attrition or when missingness depended on disease activity at 1 year. IPW2 and CARRAC produced unbiased estimations, but IPW2 had a greater sensitivity to the missing pattern of data and the amount of attrition than CARRAC.ConclusionsOnly multiple imputation and IPW2, which considered both confounding and treatment cessation reasons, produced accurate comparative effectiveness estimates.
|
|
| 39. |
- Reimer, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Interactive effects of subsidiary crops and weed pressure in the transition period to non-inversion tillage, a case study of six sites across northern and central Europe
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Agronomy. - : MDPI AG. - 2073-4395. ; 9:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Reducing soil tillage can lead to many benefits, but this practice often increases weed abundance and thus the need for herbicides, especially during the transition phase from inversion tillage to non-inversion tillage. We evaluated if subsidiary crops (SCs, e.g., cover crops) can mitigate the effects of non-inversion tillage on weed abundance. Two-year experiments studying SC use, tillage intensity, and nitrogen (N) fertilization level were carried out twice at six sites throughout northern and central Europe. SCs significantly reduced weed cover throughout the intercrop period (−55% to −1% depending on site), but only slightly during the main crops. Overall weed abundance and weed biomass were higher when using non-inversion tillage with SCs compared to inversion tillage without SCs. The effects differed due to site-specific weed pressure and management. With increasing weed pressure, the effect of SCs decreased, and the advantage of inversion over non-inversion tillage increased. N fertilization level did not affect weed abundance. The results suggest that SCs can contribute by controlling weeds but cannot fully compensate for reduced weed control of non-inversion tillage in the transition phase. Using non-inversion tillage together with SCs is primarily recommended in low weed pressure environments. © 2019 by the authors
|
|
