| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug co-therapy with methotrexate and leflunomide in rituximab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: results of a 1-year follow-up study from the CERERRA collaboration
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 71:3, s. 374-377
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare the effectiveness and safety of rituximab alone or in combination with either methotrexate or leflunomide.Methods10 European registries submitted anonymised datasets with baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month clinical data from patients who started rituximab.Results1195 patients were treated with rituximab plus methotrexate, 177 with rituximab plus leflunomide and 505 with rituximab alone. Significantly more patients achieved a European League Against Rheumatism good response at 6 months when treated with rituximab plus leflunomide (29.1%) compared with rituximab plus methotrexate (21.1%) and rituximab alone (19.3%; p=0.02 and p=0.01, respectively). Similar results were observed at 12 months. Adverse events occurred in 10.2%, 13.2% and 13.9% of patients on rituximab plus leflunomide, rituximab plus methotrexate and rituximab alone, respectively.ConclusionsLeflunomide is an effective and safe alternative to methotrexate as concomitant treatment with rituximab. Slightly better results were obtained by the combination of rituximab and leflunomide than rituximab and methotrexate, raising the possibility of a synergistic effect of leflunomide and rituximab.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Rituximab Retreatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Real-life Cohort: Data from the CERERRA Collaboration
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Journal of rheumatology. - : The Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 44:2, s. 162-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several aspects of rituximab (RTX) retreatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) need to be further elucidated. The aim of this study was to describe the effect of repeated courses of RTX on disease activity and to compare 2 retreatment strategies, fixed-interval versus on-flare retreatment, in a large international, observational, collaborative study.Methods.In the first analysis, patients with RA who received at least 4 cycles with RTX were included. In the second analysis, patients who received at least 1 RTX retreatment and for whom information about the strategy for retreatment was available were identified. Two retreatment strategies (fixed-interval vs on-flare) were compared by fitting-adjusted, mixed-effects models of 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) over time for first and second retreatment.Results.A total of 1530 patients met the eligibility criteria for the first analysis. Significant reductions of mean DAS28 between the starts of subsequent treatment cycles were observed (at start of first treatment cycle: 5.5; second: 4.3; third: 3.8; and fourth: 3.5), suggesting improved response after each additional cycle (p < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons). A total of 800 patients qualified for the second analysis: 616 were retreated on flare and 184 at fixed interval. For the first retreatment, the fixed-interval retreatment group yielded significantly better results than the on-flare group (estimated marginal mean DAS28 = 3.8, 95% CI 3.6–4.1 vs 4.6, 95% CI 4.5–4.7, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found for the second retreatment.Conclusion.Repeated treatment with RTX leads to further clinical improvement after the first course of RTX. A fixed-interval retreatment strategy seems to be more effective than on-flare retreatment.
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- 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
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
- Di Giuseppe, D, et al.
(författare)
-
BIOLOGIC REFRACTORY DISEASE IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS - DEFINITION, PREVALENCE AND PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS. A COLLABORATION BETWEEN FIVE NORDIC BIOLOGIC REGISTRIES
- 2021
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 80, s. 82-83
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In clinical practice, some patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) fail several consecutive biological treatments (bDMARDs). How this group of ”refractory” patients should best be defined, how common they are, and what their characteristics are, is poorly understood.Objectives:To explore the point prevalence of bDMARD refractory disease in axSpA over time, according to different definitions, and to describe the characteristics of refractory vs. not-refractory patients upon start of their first bDMARD.Methods:Observational prospective cohort study. Patients with axSpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographic axial SpA) starting a first bDMARD 2009-2018 were identified in biologic registries in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland. Clinical characteristics and treatments were retrieved, and data were pooled for analysis.Refractory disease was defined based on the number of different bDMARD treatments started in individual patients: mild (≥3 bDMARDs), moderate (≥4), and strict (5 or more). Restart of same bDMARD with another bDMARD in between counted as separate courses whereas switch from originator to corresponding biosimilar was ignored.Proportions of patients fulfilling each definition of refractory disease at 2 and 5 years after the start of 1st bDMARD were calculated.Point-prevalence per calendar-year was calculated as the number of patients with refractory disease at the end of each year, divided by the total number of patients ever having starting a first bDMARD before that time-point, and who were still alive and resident in the country.Results:The point prevalence of refractory axSpA increased with calendar-time (Figure). Among 12,037 included axSpA patients (64% male), the point-prevalence of bDMARD refractory disease in 2018 was 16%/7%/3% according to mild/moderate/strict definitions (Table).Table 1.Biologic refractory axSpA according to three definitionsA.Baseline characteristics upon start 1st bDMARDRefractory definitionOverall cohortMILDMODERATESTRICTN120371969832351Age, years42 (13)41 (12)41 (12)41 (12)Male, %64%57%54%56%Disease duration, years7 (10)6 (9)6 (8)5 (8)BASDAI, 0-10053 (28)60 (29)63 (27)66 (35)ASDAS3.3 (1.1)3.5 (1.2)3.6 (1.0)3.7 (1.1)CRP, mg/L16 (23)18 (26)21 (28)23 (32)Patient global, VAS, 0-10059 (25)65 (22)66 (22)67 (23)Patient Pain, VAS, 0-10057 (24)62 (22)63 (22)63 (22)Fatigue, VAS, 0-10059 (27)66 (26)66 (26)68 (25)B.Proportions of patients having refractory disease 2 and 5 years after start of their first bDMARD2 years, %5%1%0%5 years, %13%4%1%Numbers are means (SD) unless otherwise statedUpon start of their 1st bDMARD, patients later fulfilling the definitions for refractory axSpA were more frequently women, had shorter disease duration, higher C-reactive protein and higher patient reported outcomes.Overall, 5%/1%/0% had mild/moderate/strict refractory disease 2 years after start of first bDMARD, after 5 years it was 13%/4%/1% (Table).Conclusion:In this large Nordic observational cohort of axSpA patients treated in routine care, we could demonstrate that a substantial proportion of all patients had used multiple bDMARDs. In 2018, one in six patients had received ≥3 bDMARDs, indicating a bDMARD refractory disease. Multiple switching was more frequent during later years, probably due to more bDMARDs becoming available. The characteristics of refractory axSpA, including sex and disease activity, will have to be further explored, as will the impact of refractory disease on long-term outcomes.Acknowledgements:the DANBIO, SRQ, ICEBIO, ROB-FIN and NOR-DMARD registries.Partly sponsored by Nordforsk and Foreum.Disclosure of Interests:Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Ulf Lindström: None declared, Kalle Aaltonen: None declared, Heikki Relas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, MSD, Roche, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen and Novartis, Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celtrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopis, Sandoz. MLH chairs the steering committee of the Danish Rheumatology Quality Registry (DANBIO), which receives public funding from the hospital owners and funding from pharmaceutical companies. MLH co-chairs the EuroSpA research collaboration, which generates real-world evidence of treatment of psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis based on secondary use of quality data and is partly funded by Novartis., Johan Askling: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen: None declared, Lene Dreyer Speakers bureau: Eli-Lilly and Galderma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Dan Nordström: None declared, Brigitte Michelsen: None declared, Arni Jon Geirsson: None declared, Lennart T.H. Jacobsson: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Pfizer, Lundbeck foundation
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
- Dijkshoorn, B, et al.
(författare)
-
PROFOUND ANTICOAGULANT EFFECTS OF INITIAL ANTIRHEUMATIC TREATMENTS IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS: A NORD-STAR SPIN-OFF STUDY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 40-41
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Thus far, there have not been any comparative studies investigating the effects of initial antirheumatic treatments in (very) early RA patients.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of different initial treatments on hemostatic parameters in patients with early RA.MethodsNORD-STAR is an international, multicentre, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study where patients with newly diagnosed RA started methotrexate (MTX) and were randomised 1:1:1:1 to a) conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), b) certolizumab pegol, c) abatacept, d) tocilizumab1. This study is a spin-off from the main NORD-STAR study extensively investigating hemostatic system in 24 per protocol consecutive Dutch participants at baseline, 12 weeks and 24 weeks after the start of the treatment. Statistical analysis was done using paired samples t-test in SPSS version 28.ResultsThe mean age of investigated patients was 51.8 (± 12.7) years and 58.3% were female. At baseline patients had an average DAS28 score of 4.6 (± 0.9) and had elevated levels of investigated coagulation biomarkers: Factor 1 + 2, fibrinogen, D-dimer and parameters of the two global hemostatic assays, i.e. endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) and overall hemostasis potential (OHP). These biomarkers decreased significantly at 12 and 24 weeks in patients in all groups (Table 1). Overall fibrinolytic potential (OFP) was decreased and clot lysis time (CLT) was prolonged at baseline, demonstrating impaired fibrinolytic activity in early RA. The reduction of coagulation parameters was significantly higher in biological treatment arms in comparison to the standard MTX treatment arm. In addition, tocilizumab was more effective compared to certolizumab and abatacept, (Figure 1), which was expected considering the direct inhibitory effect of this drug on the IL-6 synthesis and consequently the coagulation activation as well. After 24 weeks of treatment with methotrexate and tocilizumab, the average fibrinogen of patients was reduced by 63% vs 31% and 36% in the certolizumab and abatacept groups, respectively. The changes in DAS-28 and the changes in fibrinogen had a correlation of 0.385 which did not reach statistical significance.Table 1.Measurements are marked with * if p<0.05, ** if p<0.01 and *** if p<0.001BaselineW12W24Factor 1 + 2 (pmol/L)270.25 (149.4)190.36 (108.6)**179.52 (85.3)***Fibrinogen (g/L)4.64 (1.5)3.61 (1.6)**2.63 (1.2)***D-dimer (mg/L)2.17 (3.0)0.33 (0.23)**0.29 (0.2)**OHP (Abs-sum)157.38 (64.9)120.62 (68.7)*100.49 (53.8)***OCP (Abs-sum)369.52 (58.8)305.04 (101.7)*275.91 (83.1)***OFP (%)57.97 (13.1)63.20 (12.7)*65.25 (11.4)***Lag time (s)304.5 (71.1)306.8 (71.8)312.7 (65.4)Slope0.07 (0.02)0.066 (0.03)0.094 (0.12)Max Abs1.17 (0.3)1.00 (0.4)*0.91 (0.3)**CLT (s)1405 (356)1317 (377)1231 (320)**ETP (nM*min)1480 (471)1395 (395)*1337 (429)*Peak (nM)231 (78)223 (68)223 (74)Lagtime (min)4.06 (2.1)3.28 (1.2)**2.87 (1.0)***ttPeak (min)7.40 (2.2)6.61 (1.5)*6.13 (1.4)**Figure 1.ConclusionOur results indicate an enhanced coagulation and fibrinolytic impairment in newly diagnosed RA patients. Effective antirheumatic treatments reduce this hemostatic imbalance, with significantly more pronounced effects of biologic drugs compared to conventional (MTX+glucocorticoids) treatment.References[1]Hetland M et al. BMJ. 2020Disclosure of InterestsBas Dijkshoorn: None declared, Aleksandra Antovic: None declared, Daisy Vedder: None declared, Anna Rudin: None declared, Dan Nordström Speakers bureau: Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Amgen and Novartis - not related to this work, Consultant of: Novartis - not related to this work, Kristina Lend: None declared, Till Uhlig Speakers bureau: Grünenthal, Novartis, Consultant of: Grünenthal, Novartis, Grant/research support from: NORDFORSK, Espen A Haavardsholm Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, UCB, Grant/research support from: NORDFORSK, Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Gerdur Gröndal: None declared, Merete Lund Hetland Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopies, Sandoz, Novartis, Marte Heiberg: None declared, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Merck, Celgene and Novartis, Kim Hørslev-Petersen: None declared, Jon Lampa Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pifzer, UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, GSK, UCB, Michael Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Celgene, Consultant of: Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, Galapagos, BMS.
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
- 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
|
|
| 42. |
|
|
| 43. |
|
|
| 44. |
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
- Glintborg, B, et al.
(författare)
-
UPTAKE OF NEWER BIOLOGIC AND TARGETED SYNTHETIC DMARDS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS, RESULTS FROM FOUR NORDIC BIOLOGIC REGISTRIES
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 766-767
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The treatment landscape in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is changing, including newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) with different modes of action becoming available. However, the most effective treatment strategy in routine care remains to be established.ObjectivesTo explore the uptake and treatment patterns of newer b/tsDMARDs, namely JAK-inhibitors (JAKi; baricitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib), IL-17-inhibitors (ixekizumab, secukinumab), abatacept, apremilast, and ustekinumab in PsA patients from the Nordic countries. Furthermore, to describe patient characteristics and extra-musculoskeletal manifestations at treatment start (=baseline).MethodsObservational cohort study, using prospectively collected routine care data from 4 Nordic rheumatology registries. Treatments (newer b/tsDMARDs with tumor-necrosis-factor inhibitors (TNFi) as the reference) initiated from January 2009 until December 2020 and corresponding baseline patient characteristics were identified. Linkage to national patient registries was used to identify previous extra-musculoskeletal manifestations (0-5 years). Country-level data were pooled for analyses. Uptake of each drug was explored as the cumulative number of treatment starts (a) overall, irrespective of previous b/tsDMARD experience, and (b) in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients. Each patient could contribute >1 treatment course.ResultsOverall, 13,364 unique patients contributing 24,325 treatment courses with either a newer b/tsDMARD (4,855, 20%) or a TNFi (19,470, 80%, whereof 10,897 were started year 2015-20) were identified. For the sub-group of 11,892 first b/tsDMARD treatment courses, 1,009 (8%) were a newer b/tsDMARD (10,883 were a TNFi, whereof 5,956 were started year 2015-20).Secukinumab dominated the newer b/tsDMARD uptake (1,848 new-starts, Figure 1). Ustekinumab-uptake increased over time both overall and in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, apremilast had the fastest uptake (490 new-starts) (Figure 1). Use of JAKi was limited, especially in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients.Figure 1.Patients starting a newer b/tsDMARD tended to have longer disease duration and slightly higher disease activity at baseline (DAS28, patient-reported outcomes) than TNFi initiators (Table 1). Previous extra-musculoskeletal manifestations (uveitis, IBD) were rare, and with similar distributions across treatments (Table 1).Table 1.Baseline characteristics upon treatment startAbata-ceptApre-milastBari-citinibIxe-kizumabSecuki-numabTofa-citinibUpada-citinibUste-kinumabAny TNFiCumulative uptake, n3629351063421848494669119470Male gender, %334227384033333744Age54 (12)53 (12)55 (13)52 (13)51 (13)54 (13)52 (10)50 (12)49 (13)b/tsDMARD treatment number, %1952911149020562191512262518171925≥3723378746173836219Disease duration, yrs9 (8)8 (8)10 (8)10 (8)9 (9)11 (10)8 (8)8 (9)7 (8)Pain, VAS (0-100)63 (21)61 (23)64 (23)64 (25)63 (24)66 (23)75 (17)64 (23)59 (24)DAS284.73 (1.34)4.04 (1.35)3.95 (1.36)4.24 (1.19)4.13 (1.36)4.49 (1.33)4.74 (0.88)4.19 (1.32)4.07 (1.29)Uveitis, %*323123022IBD, %*113111-31Numbers are mean (SD) unless otherwise statedIBD: inflammatory bowel disease, bDMARD: biologic DMARD, ts: targeted synthetic*0-5 years previously, available all study period for Iceland, Sweden, Finland until 31Dec2018, not available for DenmarkConclusionIn this cross-country collaboration we were able to explore uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs. TNFi still dominates compared to newer b/tsDMARDs in routine care treatment of PsA. Newer b/tsDMARDs are mainly used in patients with several previous treatment failures, i.e. with longer disease duration and higher disease activity, indicating difficult to treat disease. Further studies are planned to explore real-world treatment patterns and outcomes.AcknowledgementsBG and DdiG contributed equally.Partly funded by NordForsk and Foreum grants. On behalf of the Danish DANBIO, Swedish SRQ, Norwegian NOR-DMARD, Finnish ROB-FIN and Icelandic ICEBIO registriesDisclosure of InterestsBente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Johan K Wallman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Dan Nordström: None declared, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Novartis and Amgen, Merete Lund Hetland Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly Denmark A/S, Janssen Biologics B.V, Lundbeck Fonden, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Biopis, Sandoz, Novartis., Johan Askling Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB., Gerdur Gröndal: None declared, Tuulikki Sokka-Isler Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sella Aarrestad Provan: None declared, Ulf Lindström: None declared
|
|
| 49. |
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
