| 1. |
- Hansen, R. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Inflammatory hallmarks of lesser prominence in psoriatic arthritis patients starting biologics: a Nordic population-based cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 60:1, s. 140-146
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives. To assess secular trends in baseline characteristics of PsA patients initiating their first or subsequent biologic DMARD (bDMARD) therapy and to explore prescription patterns and treatment rates of bDMARDs from 2006 to 2017 in the Nordic countries. Methods. PsA patients registered in the Nordic rheumatology registries initiating any treatment with bDMARDs were identified. The bDMARDs were grouped as original TNF inhibitor [TNFi; adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX)]; certolizumab pegol (CZP) and golimumab (GOL); biosimilars and ustekinumab, based on the date of release. Baseline characteristics were compared for the five countries, supplemented by secular trends with R-2 calculations and point prevalence of bDMARD treatment. Results. A total of 18 089 patients were identified (Denmark, 4361; Iceland, 449; Norway, 1948; Finland, 1069; Sweden, 10 262). A total of 54% of the patients were female, 34.3% of patients initiated an original TNFi, 8% CZP and GOL, 7.5% biosimilars and 0.3% ustekinumab as a first-line bDMARD. Subsequent bDMARDs were 25.2% original TNFi, 9% CZP and GOL, 12% biosimilars and 2.1% ustekinumab. From 2015 through 2017 there was a rapid uptake of biosimilars. The total of first-line bDMARD initiators with lower disease activity increased from 2006 to 2017, where an R2 close to 1 showed a strong association. Conclusion. Across the Nordic countries, the number of prescribed bDMARDs increased from 2006 to 2017, indicating a previously unmet need for bDMARDs in the PsA population. In recent years, PsA patients have initiated bDMARDs with lower disease activity compared with previous years, suggesting that bDMARDs are initiated in patients with a less active inflammatory phenotype.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lindström, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of treatment retention and response to secukinumab versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 60:8, s. 3635-3645
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives. To compare treatment retention and response to secukinumab vs adalimumab, including the other four TNF inhibitors (TNFi) as comparators, in PsA. Methods. All patients with PsA starting secukinumab or a TNFi in 2015-2018 were identified in the biologic registers of the Nordic countries. Data on comorbidities were linked from national registers. One-year treatment retention and hazard ratios (HRs) for treatment discontinuation were calculated. The proportion achieving a 6 month 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) remission was determined together with odds ratios (ORs) for remission (logistic regression). Both HRs and ORs were calculated with adalimumab as the reference and adjusted for baseline characteristics and concurrent comorbidities. All analyses were stratified by the line of biologic treatment (first, second, third+). Results. We identified 6143 patients contributing 8307 treatment courses (secukinumab, 1227; adalimumab, 1367). Secukinumab was rarely used as the first biologic, otherwise baseline characteristics were similar. No clinically significant differences in treatment retention or response rates were observed for secukinumab vs adalimumab. The adjusted HRs for discontinuation per the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.98 (95% CI 0.68, 1.41), 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) and 1.07 (0.84, 1.36), respectively. The ORs for DAPSA28 remission in the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.62 (95% CI 0.30, 1.28), 0.85 (0.41, 1.78) and 0.74 (0.36, 1.51), respectively. In the subset of patients previously failing a TNFi due to ineffectiveness, the results were similar. Conclusion. No significant differences in treatment retention or response were observed between secukinumab and adalimumab, regardless of the line of treatment. This suggests that even in patients who have failed a TNFi, choosing either another TNFi or secukinumab may be equally effective.
|
|
