| 1. |
- Brahe, C. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Retention and response rates in 14 261 PsA patients starting TNF inhibitor treatment-results from 12 countries in EuroSpA
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 59:7, s. 1640-1650
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. To investigate TNF inhibitor (TNFi) retention and response rates in European biologic-naive patients with PsA. Methods. Prospectively collected data on PsA patients in routine care from 12 European registries were pooled. Heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between registries were explored (analysis of variance and pairwise comparison). Retention rates (Kaplan-Meier), clinical remission [28-joint count DAS (DAS28) <2.6; 28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis 4] and ACR criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20)/ACR50/ACR70 were calculated, including LUNDEX adjustment. Results. Overall, 14 261 patients with PsA initiated a first TNFi. Considerable heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between registries was observed. The median 12-month retention rate (95% CI) was 77% (76, 78%), ranging from 68 to 90% across registries. Overall, DAS28/28 joint Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis remission rates at 6 months were 56%/27% (LUNDEX: 45%/22%). Six-month ACR20/50/70 responses were 53%/38%/22%, respectively. In patients initiating a first TNFi after 2009 with registered fulfilment of ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria (n = 1980) or registered one or more swollen joint at baseline (n = 5803), the retention rates and response rates were similar to those found overall. Conclusion. Approximately half of >14 000 patients with PsA who initiated first TNFi treatment in routine care were in DAS28 remission after 6 months, and three-quarters were still on the drug after 1 year. Considerable heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and outcomes across registries was observed. The feasibility of creating a large European database of PsA patients treated in routine care was demonstrated, offering unique opportunities for research with real-world data.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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
|
|
| 3. |
- 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
|
|
| 4. |
- Michelsen, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Drug retention, inactive disease and response rates in 1860 patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating secukinumab treatment: routine care data from 13 registries in the EuroSpA collaboration
- 2020
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 6:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To explore 6-month and 12-month secukinumab effectiveness in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) overall, as well as across (1) number of previous biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs), (2) time since diagnosis and (3) different European registries. METHODS: Real-life data from 13 European registries participating in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Kaplan-Meier with log-rank test, Cox regression, χ² and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess 6-month and 12-month secukinumab retention, inactive disease/low-disease-activity states (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) <2/<4, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3/<2.1) and response rates (BASDAI50, Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 20/40, ASDAS clinically important improvement (ASDAS-CII) and ASDAS major improvement (ASDAS-MI)). RESULTS: We included 1860 patients initiating secukinumab as part of routine care. Overall 6-month/12-month secukinumab retention rates were 82%/72%, with significant (p<0.001) differences between the registries (6-month: 70-93%, 12-month: 53-86%) and across number of previous b/tsDMARDs (b/tsDMARD-naïve: 90%/73%, 1 prior b/tsDMARD: 83%/73%, ≥2 prior b/tsDMARDs: 78%/66%). Overall 6-month/12-month BASDAI<4 were observed in 51%/51%, ASDAS<1.3 in 9%/11%, BASDAI50 in 53%/47%, ASAS40 in 28%/22%, ASDAS-CII in 49%/46% and ASDAS-MI in 25%/26% of the patients. All rates differed significantly across number of previous b/tsDMARDs, were numerically higher for b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and varied significantly across registries. Overall, time since diagnosis was not associated with secukinumab effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 1860 patients from 13 European countries, we present the first comprehensive real-life data on effectiveness of secukinumab in patients with axSpA. Overall, secukinumab retention rates after 6 and 12months of treatment were high. Secukinumab effectiveness was consistently better for bionaïve patients, independent of time since diagnosis and differed across the European countries. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
|
|
| 5. |
- Michelsen, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of discordance between patient's and evaluator's global assessment on treatment outcomes in 14 868 patients with spondyloarthritis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 59:9, s. 2455-2461
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives. To assess the impact of 'patient's minus evaluator's global assessment of disease activity' (Delta PEG) at treatment initiation on retention and remission rates of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients across Europe. Methods. Real-life data from PsA and axSpA patients starting their first TNFi from 11 countries in the European Spondyloarthritis Research Collaboration Network were pooled. Retention rates were compared by Kaplan-Meier analyses with log-rank test and by Cox regression, and remission rates by chi(2) test and by logistic regression across quartiles of baseline Delta PEG, separately in female and male PsA and axSpA patients. Results. We included 14 868 spondyloarthritis (5855 PsA, 9013 axSpA) patients. Baseline Delta PEG was negatively associated with 6/12/24-months' TNFi retention rates in female and male PsA and axSpA patients (P < 0.001), with 6/12/24-months' BASDAI < 2 (P <= 0.002) and ASDAS < 1.3 (P <= 0.005) in axSpA patients, and with DAS28CRP(4)<2.6 (P <= 0.04) and DAPSA28 <= 4 (P <= 0.01), but not DAS28CRP(3)<2.6 (P >= 0.13) in PsA patients, with few exceptions on remission rates. Retention and remission rates were overall lower in female than male patients. Conclusion. High baseline patient's compared with evaluator's global assessment was associated with lower 6/12/24-months' remission as well as retention rates of first TNFi in both PsA and axSpA patients. These results highlight the importance of discordance between patient's and evaluator's perspective on disease outcomes.
|
|
