| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Chatzidionysiou, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of a Second Biologic After Failure of a Non-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor As First Biologic in Rheumatoid Arthritis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - : The Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 48:10, s. 1512-1518
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients whose first-ever bDMARD was a non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of a second bDMARD (non-TNFi: rituximab [RTX], abatacept [ABA], or tocilizumab [TCZ], separately; and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. Methods. We identified patients with RA from the 5 Nordic biologics registers who started treatment with a non-TNFi as first-ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed drug survival (at 6 and 12 months) and primary response (at 6 months). Results. We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67, and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFi bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, approximately 70% and 60%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months, less than one-third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFi, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). Conclusion. The drug survival and primary response of a second bDMARD in patients with RA switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Omitting axillary dissection in breast cancer with sentinel-node metastases
- 2024
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 390:13, s. 1163-1175
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Trials evaluating the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and sentinel-lymph-node metastases have been compromised by limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and a scarcity of data on relevant clinical subgroups.METHODS We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with clinically node-negative primary T1 to T3 breast cancer (tumor size, T1, ≤20 mm; T2, 21 to 50 mm; and T3, >50 mm in the largest dimension) with one or two sentinel-node macrometastases (metastasis size, >2 mm in the largest dimension) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to completion axillary-lymph-node dissection or its omission (sentinel-node biopsy only). Adjuvant treatment and radiation therapy were used in accordance with national guidelines. The primary end point was overall survival. We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondary end point of recurrence-free survival. To show noninferiority of sentinel-node biopsy only, the upper boundary of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for recurrence or death had to be below 1.44.RESULTS Between January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 2766 patients were enrolled across five countries. The per-protocol population included 2540 patients, of whom 1335 were assigned to undergo sentinel-node biopsy only and 1205 to undergo completion axillary-lymph-node dissection (dissection group). Radiation therapy including nodal target volumes was administered to 1192 of 1326 patients (89.9%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and to 1058 of 1197 (88.4%) in the dissection group. The median follow-up was 46.8 months (range, 1.5 to 94.5). Overall, 191 patients had recurrence or died. The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5 to 91.9) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3 to 91.1) in the dissection group, with a country-adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence or death of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), which was significantly (P<0.001) below the prespecified noninferiority margin.CONCLUSIONS The omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was noninferior to the more extensive surgery in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had sentinel-node macrometastases, most of whom received nodal radiation therapy. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; SENOMAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02240472.).
|
|
| 6. |
- de Boniface, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The generalisability of randomised clinical trials: an interim external validity analysis of the ongoing SENOMAC trial in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 180:1, s. 167-176
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose None of the key randomised trials on the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in sentinel lymph-positive breast cancer have reported external validity, even though results indicate selection bias. Our aim was to assess the external validity of the ongoing randomised SENOMAC trial by comparing characteristics of Swedish SENOMAC trial participants with non-included eligible patients registered in the Swedish National Breast Cancer Register (NKBC). Methods In the ongoing non-inferiority European SENOMAC trial, clinically node-negative cT1-T3 breast cancer patients with up to two sentinel lymph node macrometastases are randomised to undergo completion ALND or not. Both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are eligible interventions. Data from NKBC were extracted for the years 2016 and 2017, and patient and tumour characteristics compared with Swedish trial participants from the same years. Results Overall, 306 NKBC cases from non-participating and 847 NKBC cases from participating sites (excluding SENOMAC participants) were compared with 463 SENOMAC trial participants. Patients belonging to the middle age groups (p = 0.015), with smaller tumours (p = 0.013) treated by breast-conserving therapy (50.3 versus 47.1 versus 65.2%, p < 0.001) and less nodal tumour burden (only 1 macrometastasis in 78.8 versus 79.9 versus 87.3%, p = 0.001) were over-represented in the trial population. Time trends indicated, however, that differences may be mitigated over time. Conclusions This interim external validity analysis specifically addresses selection mechanisms during an ongoing trial, potentially increasing generalisability by the time full accrual is reached. Similar validity checks should be an integral part of prospective clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT 02240472, retrospective registration date September 14, 2015 after trial initiation on January 31, 2015
|
|
| 7. |
- Alping, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Effectiveness of initial MS treatments in the COMBAT-MS trial : injectables, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab and rituximab
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Multiple Sclerosis Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 1352-4585 .- 1477-0970. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. 21-22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Direct comparisons across multiple disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are valuable in clinical decision making. COMBAT-MS (NCT03193866) is an observational drug trial capturing data on clinical relapses, lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and drug survival, at all Swedish university clinics.Objective: Compare the effectiveness of the most common initial MS therapies in Sweden.Methods: All first-ever MS treatments with injectables (INJ, interferon-β/glatiramer acetate), dimethyl fumarate (DMF), natalizumab (NTZ), and rituximab (RTX), started 2011-01-01 to 2020-12-14, were identified with prospectively recorded outcome data in the Swedish MS Register. Follow-up continued even if the therapy ended. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation and potential confounding was adjusted for using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting with baseline variables: age, sex, MS duration, geographical region, EDSS, and relapses. All comparisons are made against RTX.Results: We included 1936 first-ever therapy episodes: 856 INJ, 341 DMF, 270 NTZ, and 469 RTX. Baseline characteristics differed by DMT, with natalizumab having the youngest patients, shortest MS duration, and the most previous relapses.After adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for first relapse vs RTX was for INJ 5.9 (95% confidence interval 3.7; 9.5), DMF 2.8 (1.7; 4.8), and NTZ 1.8 (1.0; 3.3). Similarly, the relative three-year lesion rate was for INJ 6.06 (3.75; 9.80), DMF 3.52 (2.01; 6.17), and NTZ 2.03 (1.14; 3.64). EDSS differences at three years were only marginally different: INJ 0.25 (0.06; 0.44), DMF 0.05 (-0.16; 0.26), and NTZ 0.00 (-0.23; 0.24). In contrast, HR for treatment discontinuation was marked: INJ 32.5 (19.0; 55.7), DMF 20.2 (11.5; 35.4), and NTZ 16.2 (8.9; 29.5).Conclusions: In treatment-naïve patients, RTX was associated with the lowest risk of relapses and MRI lesions, and by far the lowest probability of switching to a second therapy. In contrast, EDSS at 3 years was similar for RTX, DMF, and NTZ, and only slightly higher for INJ. The apparent difference in effectiveness between NTZ and RTX could possibly be explained by the vulnerable period after switching from NTZ, mainly due to JC virus positivity. These findings underscore the importance of tracking long-term outcomes from first DMT start, while considering subsequent therapy switches.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- Arkema, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Comorbidities and rheumatic diseases
- 2014
-
Ingår i: SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY. - 0300-9742. ; 43, s. 39-39
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Askling, J., et al.
(författare)
-
How comparable are rates of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across the world? A comparison of cancer rates, and means to optimise their comparability, in five RA registries
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 75:10, s. 1789-1796
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The overall incidence of cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is modestly elevated. The extent to which cancer rates in RA vary across clinical cohorts and patient subsets, as defined by disease activity or treatment is less known but critical for understanding the safety of existing and new antirheumatic therapies. We investigated comparability of, and means to harmonise, malignancy rates in five RA registries from four continents. Methods Participating RA registries were Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (several countries) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data, and sensitivity analyses of sub-cohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change, prior comorbidities and restricted by calendar time or follow-up, respectively. Malignancy rates with 95% CIs were estimated, and standardised for age and sex, based on the distributions from a typical RA clinical trial programme population (fostamatinib). Results There was a high consistency in rates for overall malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), for malignant lymphomas, but not for all skin cancers, across registries, in particular following age/sex standardisation. Standardised rates of overall malignancy excluding NMSC varied from 0.56 to 0.87 per 100 person-years. Within each registry, rates were generally consistent across sensitivity analyses, which differed little from the main analysis. Conclusion In real-world RA populations, rates of both overall malignancy and of lymphomas are consistent.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- 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
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Frisell, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative analysis of first-year fingolimod and natalizumab drug discontinuation among Swedish patients with multiple sclerosis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England). - : SAGE Publications. - 1477-0970 .- 1352-4585. ; 22:1, s. 85-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Natalizumab (NTZ) and fingolimod (FGL) are mainly used second line in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (MS), although pivotal trials included mainly treatment-naïve patients. Objective: This study aims to provide real-world data on safety and discontinuation rates. Methods: Using IMSE, a drug monitoring registry for all newer MS drugs in Sweden, we analysed differences in baseline characteristics and 1-year drug survival for patients registered 2011–2013, initiating treatment with NTZ ( n=640) or FGL ( n=876). Among FGL initiators, n=383 (44%) had previously used NTZ (FGLafterNTZ). Results: Compared with NTZ, the FGL cohort was older and more often male (36/38 years, 24%/33% males). Baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale was similar across groups, but MS Severity Score was higher in NTZ patients, and Symbol Digit Modalities Test and MS Impact Scale (MSIS-29) was higher in FGLafterNTZ versus FGLNTZ-naïve patients. Proportion on drug after 1 year was high, NTZ=87%, FGLNTZ-naïve=83% and FGLafterNTZ=76%. Adverse events was the most frequent reason for discontinuing FGL (FGLNTZ-naïve=9%, FGLafterNTZ=12%), and was significantly higher than on NTZ (3%). In contrast, the proportion of patients stopping treatment due to lack of effect was more similar: NTZ=4%, FGLNTZ-naïve=3%, FGLafterNTZ=8%. Conclusion: FGL and NTZ were both well tolerated, but FGL less so than NTZ, especially in patients switching to FGL from NTZ. Group differences were not explained by differences in recorded baseline characteristics.
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
- 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
|
|
| 26. |
- Longinetti, E., et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 clinical outcomes and DMT of MS patients and population-based controls
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology. - : Wiley. - 2328-9503. ; 9:9, s. 1449-1458
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To estimate risks for all-cause mortality and for severe COVID-19 in multiple sclerosis patients and across relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients exposed to disease-modifying therapies. Methods: We conducted a Swedish nationwide population-based multi-register linkage cohort study and followed all multiple sclerosis patients (n = 17,692 in March 2020), individually age-, sex-, and region-matched to five population-based controls (n = 86,176 in March 2020) during March 2020-June 2021. We compared annual all-cause mortality within and across cohorts, and assessed incidence rates and relative risks for hospitalization, intensive care admission, and death due to COVID-19 in relation to disease-modifying therapy use, using Cox regression. Results: Absolute all-cause mortality among multiple sclerosis patients was higher from March to December 2020 than in previous years, but relative risks versus the population-based controls were similar to preceding years. Incidence rates of hospitalization, intensive care admission, and death due to COVID-19 remained in line with those for all-cause hospitalization, intensive care admission, and mortality. Among relapsing-remitting patients on rituximab, trends for differences in risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 remained in the demographics-, socioeconomic status-, comorbidity-, and multiple sclerosis severity-adjusted model. Interpretation: Risks of severe COVID-19-related outcomes were increased among multiple sclerosis patients as a whole compared to population controls, but risk increases were also seen for non-COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care admission, and mortality, and did not significantly differ during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic years. The risk conveyed by disease-modifying therapies was smaller than previously assumed, likely as a consequence of the possibility to better control for confounders.
|
|
| 27. |
- Longinetti, E., et al.
(författare)
-
SARS-COV2 exposure rates and serological response of people living with MS
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Multiple Sclerosis Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 1352-4585 .- 1477-0970. ; 28:Suppl. 3, s. 515-516
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Some multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with blunted humoral vaccination responses, but relevance for SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear.Objectives: To determine SARS-CoV-2 exposure rates and formation of antibody memory among participants of the COMparison Between All immunoTherapies for MS (COMBAT-MS; NCT03193866) and the Immunomodulation and MS Epidemiology (IMSE) studies.Aim: To determine SARS-CoV2 serological response of people living with MS (pwMS).Methods: Using a multiplex bead-based assay we determined SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibody levels in 3,723 pwMS in paired serum samples (n=7,157) donated prior (Results: Specificity and sensitivity of the assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% and 99.7%, respectively. The proportion of positive samples for SARS-CoV-2 differed moderately across DMTs with the highest values among cladribine-treated (7.4%) and the lowest number among rituximab-treated pwMS (3.9%). Similarly, the proportion of positive cases not reported in the Swedish MS registry varied from 100% for cladribine to 33.3% among untreated pwMS. Comparing levels of antibodies titers showed that levels were lower among those treated with rituximab or fingolimod vs interferon treated pwMS. Point estimates indicated a similar trend comparing rituximab or fingolimod vs untreated pwMS.Conclusions: Overall rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity after the first COVID-19 wave differed only moderately across DMTs, while antibody levels were lower with rituximab or fingolimod compared to interferon-treated pwMS. This indicates quantitative rather than qualitative differences in the humoral response to infection.
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
- Longinetti, E., et al.
(författare)
-
Trajectories of processing speed, disability, and their connections, over the years following disease modulatory treatment initiation among relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Multiple Sclerosis Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 1352-4585 .- 1477-0970. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. 677-678
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Data on how processing speed of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients (RRMS) evolve over time and its association with disability progression is scarce. We analysed the COMparison Between All immunoTherapies for Multiple Sclerosis (CombatMS; NCT03193866), a nationwide observational drug trial in RRMS.Objectives: Identify trajectories of processing speed and disability and their connections after disease modulatory treatment (DMT) start within the RRMS population.Describe patient characteristics associated with trajectory groups.Aim: Model trajectories of processing speed and disability.Methods: We assessed trajectories of oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) and expanded disability status scale (EDSS) from first DMT start using a group-based modeling approach among 1,800 RRMS patients followed 2010-2021. We investigated predictors of trajectories using group membership assignments as a multinomial outcome and calculated conditional probabilities linking membership across the trajectories.Results: We identified four trajectories of processing speed: low SDMT score (mean starting values; MSV=36.7, standard deviation; SD=8.4)-stable (13%), medium score (MSV =50.8, SD=6.7)-minor decrease (52%), medium/high score (MSV=62.9, SD=8.6)-minor decrease (32%), and high score (MSV= 75.2, SD=9.7)-moderate decrease (3%), and four trajectories of disability: no disability-stable (23%), minimal signs-minor increase (45%), minimal disability-moderate increase (27%), and relatively severe disability-moderate increase (5%). Patients with natalizumab as first DMT were less likely to belong to the medium and high processing speed trajectories, relative to the low SDMT score-stable one. Sex, age at DMT start, and geographical region of treatment were associated with medium and high processing speed and with minimal signs and minimal dis-ability trajectories.There was 0% probability of belonging to the relatively severe disability-moderate increase EDSS trajectory if belonging to the high score-moderate decrease SDMT trajectory, and 8% probability of belonging to the no disability-stable EDSS trajectory if belonging to the low score-stable SDMT trajectory.Conclusions: Patients with lower SDMT scores at DMT start did not decline over the years, whereas those with minimal or relatively severe disability moderately lost function. Our results also suggest an inverse link between processing speed and disability trajectories after DMT start.
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
- Michaud, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Can rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries provide contextual safety data for modern RA clinical trials? The case for mortality and cardiovascular disease
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 75:10, s. 1797-1805
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background We implemented a novel method for providing contextual adverse event rates for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme through coordinated analyses of five RA registries, focusing here on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Methods Each participating registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (East Europe, Latin America, India) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan)) defined a main cohort from January 2000 onwards. To address comparability and potential bias, we harmonised event definitions and defined several subcohorts for sensitivity analyses based on disease activity, treatment, calendar time, duration of follow-up and RCT exclusions. Rates were standardised for age, sex and, in one sensitivity analysis, also HAQ. Results The combined registry cohorts included 57251 patients with RA (234089 person-years)24.5% men, mean (SD) baseline age 58.2 (13.8) and RA duration 8.2 (11.7) years. Standardised registry mortality rates (per 100 person-years) varied from 0.42 (CORRONA) to 0.80 (NOAR), with 0.60 for RCT patients. Myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates ranged from 0.09 and 0.31 (IORRA) to 0.39 and 0.77 (SRR), with RCT rates intermediate (0.18 and 0.42), respectively. Additional subcohort analyses showed small and mostly consistent changes across registries, retaining reasonable consistency in rates across the Western registries. Additional standardisation for HAQ returned higher mortality and MACE registry rates. Conclusions This coordinated approach to contextualising RA RCT safety data demonstrated reasonable differences and consistency in rates for mortality and CVD across registries, and comparable RCT rates, and may serve as a model method to supplement clinical trial analyses for drug development programmes.
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
- Spelman, T, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative effectiveness of rituximab relative to IFN-β or glatiramer acetate in relapsing-remitting MS from the Swedish MS registry
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England). - : SAGE Publications. - 1477-0970 .- 1352-4585. ; 24:8, s. 1087-1095
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To compare treatment effectiveness and persistence in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who initiated rituximab versus glatiramer acetate (GA) or interferon-beta (IFN-β). Methods: A total of 461 patients from the Swedish MS registry in the rituximab arm were propensity score matched on a 1:2 basis with 922 patients from the IFN-β/GA comparator, between April 2005 and November 2015. Annualised relapse rate (ARR) was compared using the Poisson method. A marginal Cox model was used to analyse time to first relapse, 3-month confirmed disability progression and treatment discontinuation in the matched sample. A signed-rank test was used to compare Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) change from baseline. Results: Rituximab was associated with a reduction in ARR (0.003; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.001, 0.009) relative to IFN-β/GA (0.026; 95% CI = 0.020, 0.033) ( p < 0.001). Rituximab was associated with an 87% reduction in the relapse rate (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.04, 0.41) and an 85% reduction in the discontinuation rate (HR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.11, 0.20) relative to IFN-β/GA. EDSS regression from baseline was greater in the rituximab group at 12 and 24 months. Conclusion: Rituximab appears to be superior to first-generation disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) with respect to relapse control and tolerability, whereas superiority on disability outcomes is less clear.
|
|
| 37. |
- Verstappen, S. M. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Methodological Challenges When Comparing Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of International Observational Registries
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Arthritis Care & Research. - : Wiley. - 2151-464X .- 2151-4658. ; 67:12, s. 1637-1645
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. Comparisons of data from different registries can be helpful in understanding variations in many aspects of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study aim was to assess and improve the comparability of demographic, clinical, and comorbidity data from 5 international RA registries. Methods. Using predefined definitions, 2 subsets of patients (main cohort and subcohort) from 5 international observational registries (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Registry [CORRONA], the Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register [SRR], the Norfolk Arthritis Register [NOAR], the Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis cohort [IORRA], and CORRONA International) were evaluated and compared. Patients ages >18 years with RA, and present in or recruited to the registry from January 1, 2000, were included in the main cohort. Patients from the main cohort with positive rheumatoid factor and/or erosive RA who had received >= 1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and switched to or added another DMARD, were included in the subcohort at time of treatment switch. Results. Age and sex distributions were fairly similar across the registries. The percentage of patients with a high Disease Activity Score in 28 joints score varied between main cohorts (17.5% IORRA, 18.9% CORRONA, 24.7% NOAR, 27.7% CORRONA International, and 36.8% SRR), with IORRA, CORRONA, and CORRONA International including more prevalent cases of RA; the differences were smaller for the subcohort. Prevalence of comorbidities varied across registries (e.g., coronary artery disease ranged from 1.5% in IORRA to 7.9% in SRR), partly due to the way comorbidity data were captured and general cultural differences; the pattern was similar for the subcohorts. Conclusion. Despite different inclusion criteria for the individual RA registries, it is possible to improve the comparability and interpretability of differences across RA registries by applying well-defined cohort definitions.
|
|
| 38. |
- Yamanaka, H., et al.
(författare)
-
Infection rates in patients from five rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries: Contextualising an RA clinical trial programme
- 2017
-
Ingår i: RMD Open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 3:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of serious infections. Comparing infection rates across RA populations is complicated by differences in background infection risk, population composition and study methodology. We measured infection rates from five RA registries globally, with the aim to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trials population. Methods We used data from Consortium of Rheumatology Research of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (UK), CORRONA International (multiple countries) and Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis (Japan) and an RA clinical trial programme (fostamatinib). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data. Infection definitions were harmonised across registries. Sensitivity analyses to address potential confounding explored subcohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change and/or prior comorbidities and restriction by calendar time or follow-up. Rates of infections were estimated and standardised to the trial population for age/sex and, in one sensitivity analysis also, for Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. Results Overall, age/sex-standardised rates of hospitalised infection were quite consistent across registries (range 1.14-1.62 per 100 patient-years). Higher and more consistent rates across registries and with the trial programme overall were seen when adding standardisation for HAQ score (registry range 1.86-2.18, trials rate 2.92) or restricting to a treatment initiation subcohort followed for 18 months (registry range 0.99-2.84, trials rate 2.74). Conclusion This prospective, coordinated analysis of RA registries provided incidence rate estimates for infection events to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trial programme and demonstrated relative comparability of hospitalised infection rates across registries. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
|
|
| 42. |
|
|
| 43. |
- Alping, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of neurology. - : Wiley. - 1531-8249 .- 0364-5134. ; 80:5, s. 791-792
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 44. |
- Alping, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Rituximab versus Fingolimod after Natalizumab in Multiple Sclerosis Patients
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Annals of Neurology. - : Wiley. - 0364-5134 .- 1531-8249. ; 79:6, s. 950-958
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Many JC virus antibody-positive relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients who are stable on natalizumab switch to other therapies to avoid progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Methods: We compared outcomes for all RRMS patients switching from natalizumab due to JC virus antibody positivity at 3 Swedish multiple sclerosis centers with different preferential use of rituximab and fingolimod (Stockholm, n = 156, fingolimod 51%; Gothenburg, n = 64, fingolimod 88%; Umea, n = 36, fingolimod 19%), yielding a total cohort of N = 256 (fingolimod 55%). Results: Within 1.5 years of cessation of natalizumab, 1.8% (rituximab) and 17.6% (fingolimod) of patients experienced a clinical relapse (hazard ratio for rituximab = 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02-0.43). The hazard ratio (favoring rituximab) for adverse events (5.3% vs 21.1%) and treatment discontinuation (1.8% vs 28.2%) were 0.25 (95% CI = 0.10-0.59) and 0.07 (95% CI = 0.02-0.30), respectively. Furthermore, contrast-enhancing lesions were found in 1.4% (rituximab) versus 24.2% (fingolimod) of magnetic resonance imaging examinations (odds ratio = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.00-0.22). Differences remained when adjusting for possible confounders (age, sex, disability status, time on natalizumab, washout time, follow-up time, and study center). Interpretation: Our findings suggest an improved effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab compared with fingolimod in stable RRMS patients who switch from natalizumab due to JC virus antibody positivity. Although residual confounding factors cannot be ruled out, the shared reason for switching from natalizumab and the preferential use of either rituximab or fingolimod in 2 of the centers mitigates these concerns.
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
- Appelgren, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-reported outcomes one year after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy with or without axillary lymph node dissection in the randomized SENOMAC trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 0960-9776 .- 1532-3080. ; 63, s. 16-23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: This report evaluates whether health related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported arm morbidity one year after axillary surgery are affected by the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Methods: The ongoing international non-inferiority SENOMAC trial randomizes clinically node-negative breast cancer patients (T1-T3) with 1-2 sentinel lymph node (SLN) macrometastases to completion ALND or no further axillary surgery. For this analysis, the first 1181 patients enrolled in Sweden and Denmark between March 2015, and June 2019, were eligible. Data extraction from the trial database was on November 2020. This report covers the secondary outcomes of the SENOMAC trial: HRQoL and patient-reported arm morbidity. The EORTC QLQC30, EORTC QLQ-BR23 and Lymph-ICF questionnaires were completed in the early postoperative phase and at one-year follow-up. Adjusted one-year mean scores and mean differences between the groups are presented corrected for multiple testing.
|
|
| 48. |
|
|
| 49. |
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
