| 1. |
- 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
|
|
| 2. |
- Lindstrom, U, et al.
(författare)
-
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT RETENTION OF SECUKINUMAB AND TNF-INHIBITORS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS. OBSERVATIONAL DATA FROM A NORDIC COLLABORATION.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 79, s. 427-428
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- A head-to-head trial (EXCEED) has indicated similar effectiveness of secukinumab (SEC) and the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (ADA) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the clinical setting, treatment retention serves as a combined measure of overall effectiveness and tolerability.Objectives:To explore baseline patient characteristics, and compare treatment retention rates for SEC and each of etanercept (ETN), infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GOL), certolizimab (CZP) and ADA in PsA.Methods:Patients starting SEC or any TNFi in 2015-2018, in the 5 Nordic countries, were identified in clinical rheumatology registers. Data were pooled for analysis and stratified by 1st, 2ndand ≥3rdline of treatment. One year treatment retention was compared by crude Kaplan-Meier curves and a proportional hazard model for risk of discontinuation, censored at 1 year and adjusted for sex, age, country and baseline CRP, patient global and use of csDMARD, with ADA as reference.Results:In total, 6062 patients with PsA were included, contributing 8172 treatment starts (table 1). SEC was mainly used as 2ndor ≥3rdline treatment. The survival curves and 1-year treatment retention rates, stratified by line of treatment, were similar for SEC compared to the TNFis, with some differences between the different TNFi (fig 1, table 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) also indicated similar risk of SEC withdrawal compared to ADA (table 2).Table 1.Patient characteristics at treatment start1stline2ndline≥3rdlineSECN=164TNFiN=3808SECN=273TNFiN=1767SECN=767TNFiN=1393Females48%47%44%42%36%39%Age, years52 (13)49 (13)50 (12)50 (13)52 (12)51 (12)Disease duration, years12 (10)10 (10)13 (10)13 (10)16 (10)16 (10)Swollen joint count 283 (4)2 (3)2 (3)2 (3)3 (4)2 (3)CRP, mg/L10 (18)10 (17)7 (11)9 (17)13 (22)11 (20)Patient global score57 (24)58 (24)60 (25)59 (26)68 (23)65 (24)Concomitant therapycsDMARD30%60%41%57%49%53% Methotrexate24%49%31%48%40%44% Sulphasalazine2%9%5%5%4%6%Numbers are mean (SD) unless noted otherwiseTable 2.One year treatment retention and hazard of discontinuation for SEC and TNFiLine of treatmentDrugN1 year treatment retention % (95% CI)Adjusted HR (95% CI) for discontinuation1stlineADA56973 (69-76)RefCZP27366 (60-72)1.2 (0.9-1.6)ETN174773 (71-75)0.9 (0.7-1.1)GOL21267 (60-73)1.2 (0.9-1.7)IFX100762 (59-65)1.4 (1.1-1.7)SEC16472 (63-78)1.0 (0.7-1.4)2ndlineADA41569 (63-73)RefCZP17651 (43-58)1.6 (1.2-2.2)ETN70163 (59-66)1.2 (0.9-1.5)GOL15169 (61-76)0.9 (0.6-1.2)IFX32465 (59-70)1.0 (0.8-1.4)SEC27369 (62-74)0.9 (0.7-1.2)≥3rdlineADA34667 (62-72)RefCZP22149 (42-56)1.5 (1.2-2.0)ETN37262 (57-67)1.1 (0.9-1.5)GOL20656 (49-63)1.3 (1.0-1.8)IFX24857 (50-63)1.3 (1.0-1.8)SEC76763 (59-67)1.0 (0.8-1.3)Conclusion:In this large study of bDMARD treatment of PsA in clinical practice, SEC was most often used as 2ndor ≥3rdline treatment, and the treatment retention of SEC was comparable with that of TNFi. Further analyses, taking into account other comorbidities, channeling and effectiveness will be presented.Acknowledgments:UL and BG are shared first, and LJ and LEK shared last authors.Partly funded by Nordforsk and FOREUM.Disclosure of Interests:Ulf Lindström: None declared, Bente Glintborg Grant/research support from: Grants from Pfizer, Biogen and Abbvie, Daniela Di Giuseppe: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen, and Eli Lilly, Björn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Novartis and Amgen, Kathrine L. Grøn Grant/research support from: BMS, Sella Aarrestad Provan Consultant of: Novartis, Brigitte Michelsen: None declared, Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis, Johan K Wallman Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Dan Nordström Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Nina Trokovic: None declared, Thorvardur Love: None declared, Niels Steen Krogh: None declared, Johan Askling Grant/research support from: JA acts or has acted as PI for agreements between Karolinska Institutet and the following entities, mainly in the context of the ARTIS national safety monitoring programme of immunomodulators in rheumatology: Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Lennart T.H. Jacobsson Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Lars Erik Kristensen Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Sannofi (Advisory Board), Abbvie (Advisory Board), Biogen (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Forward Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
