Search

Aim: To assess the golimumab retention rate during up to 8 years of follow up, and any associated factors. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the BIOBADASER (Spanish registry of biological drugs) database, assessing all adults who had ever started golimumab >6 months before the analysis for an approved indication (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], axial spondyloarthritis [SpA] or psoriatic arthritis [PsA]). Results: Among 885 patients (RA 267, axial SpA 370, PsA 248) receiving 944 cycles of golimumab, the retention rate of golimumab was 71.1% (95% confidence interval: 68.0–73.9) at year 1% and 37.7% (95% CI: 33.3–42.1) at year 7 and at year 8. Retention was higher when golimumab was used as the first biological drug (81.7% at year 1, 49.9% at year 7, p < 0.001). In Cox regression analysis, factors associated with golimumab retention included use as first‐line therapy (hazard ratio [HR] for discontinuation 1.52 for second‐ and 1.79 for third/later‐line vs. first‐line), use in axial SpA or PsA rather than RA (HR for axial SpA vs. RA 0.59, for PsA vs. Rheumatoid arthritis 0.67), and treatment with concomitant methotrexate (HR 0.67). Factors associated with golimumab discontinuation were corticosteroid use (HR 1.46) and disease activity above median (HR 1.29) at golimumab initiation. Conclusion: Based on this retrospective analysis of the BIOBADASER registry, nearly two‐fifths (37.7%) of adult rheumatology patients initiating golimumab will remain on treatment for 8 years, with a higher probability of retention in axial SpA or PsA indications and when golimumab is used as first biologic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The persistence of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs(DMARDs) in monotherapy versus in combination with conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs is still a controversial topic in rheumatic diseases. To clarify this issue, the retention of the initial treatment strategy of b/tsDMARD in combination with csDMARD versus monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients under real‐life conditions was evaluated. Factors associated with maintenance of the initial strategy were analysed. Methods: Nested cohort study within the Spanish BIOBADASER III registry. Bivariate comparisons and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used for the analyses. Results: A total of 2521 patients were included in the study. In the multivariate model, the initial strategy of combination therapy was associated with shorter persistence in patients with RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.58;95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–2.50; p =.049), PsA (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.65–3.72) and AS (HR 16.77; 95% CI 7.37–38.16; p <.001), regardless of sex, time of disease progression, baseline disease activity, glucocorticoid use or type of b/tsDMARD. Overall, the combination strategy was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.13; 95% CI 1.05–1.21). Conclusions: In this real‐life study, the strategy of combining a b/tsDMARD with a csDMARD is associated with lower persistence and worse safety profile compared to monotherapy in RA and especially in PsA and AS, suggesting that combination therapy should be rethought as first choice in RA patients, but especially in PsA and AS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pesar de la evidencia, existen dudas sobre el posicionamiento de apremilast en el algoritmo de tratamiento de la artritis psoriásica (APs). El objetivo del presente proyecto fue recoger la evidencia científica y la experiencia de un grupo de reumatólogos expertos en el manejo de la APs sobre el uso de apremilast en la práctica clínica en España. Un comité científico formado por 6 expertos propuso 5 escenarios clínicos donde la evidencia sobre el uso de apremilast en APs era controvertida: 1) eficacia en APs periférica; 2) eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis; 3) eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea; 4) comorbilidades, y 5) seguridad de apremilast. Tras esto, un panel de 17 reumatólogos expertos en el tratamiento de la APs discutió estos escenarios y generó un cuestionario con 50 preguntas y 156 ítems según metodología Delphi, el cual fue respondido de forma anónima por los panelistas. Tras 2 rondas de votación, el panel de expertos alcanzó el consenso en 93 de los 156 ítems planteados (59,6%) (67 apropiados y 26 inapropiados). El grado de consenso fue del 53,3% en el área de «Eficacia en APs periférica»; del 60,0% en «Eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis»; del 50,0% en «Eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea»; del 57,1% en «Manejo de las comorbilidades en pacientes con APs», y del 67,3% en «Implicaciones de la seguridad en el uso de apremilast». La opinión estructurada de los expertos complementa la evidencia disponible y contribuye al establecimiento de pautas consensuadas para el uso de apremilast en APs. Despite the evidence, there are doubts about the positioning of apremilast in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment algorithm. The objective of this project was to collect the scientific evidence and the experience of a group of rheumatologists who are experts in the management of PsA with apremilast in clinical practice in Spain. A scientific committee made up of 6 experts proposed 5 clinical scenarios where the evidence on the use of apremilast in PsA was controversial: 1) efficacy in peripheral PsA; 2) efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis; 3) efficacy in PsA with skin involvement; 4) comorbidities, and 5) apremilast safety. After this, a panel of 17 rheumatologists with expertise in PsA management discussed these scenarios and generated a questionnaire with 50 questions and 156 items following the Delphi methodology. This questionnaire was anonymously answered by the panel. After 2 voting rounds, the panel of experts reached consensus in 93 of the 156 items raised (59.6%) (67 appropiate and 26 inappropiate). The degree of consensus was 53.3% in the area of "Efficacy in peripheral PsA"; 60.0% in "Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis"; 50.0% in "Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement"; 57.1% in "Management of comorbidities in patients with PsA", and 67.3% in "Implications of safety in the use of apremilast". The structured opinion of the experts complements the available evidence and contributes to the establishment of consensual guidelines for the use of apremilast in PsA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retention of biological treatment provides a marker of drug effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Retention of golimumab was high in clinical trial extensions and real-world studies up to 5 years in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases. Objective: To assess the probability of real-world long-term retention of treatment with golimumab up to 7 years after treatment initiation. Methods: This retrospective noninterventional study involved analysis of the Spanish biological drugs registry, BIOBADASER. Adults who had ever received golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and had initiated it > 6 months before the analysis date, were included. Results: Among 685 patients (28.5% RA, 42.9% SpA, 28.6% PsA), the overall probability of retention of golimumab treatment since initiation was 71.7% (95% confidence interval 68.1–74.9) at year 1, 60.5% (56.5–64.2%) at year 2, 55.6% (51.5–59.5%) at year 3, 50.6% (46.2–54.8%) at year 4, 45.1% (40.1–50.0%) at year 5, 44.2% (39.0–49.3) at year 6, and 39.5% (32.8–46.2) at year 7. Retention was greater in patients with axial SpA or PsA versus RA (p < 0.001) and when golimumab was used as first-line treatment versus third or later lines (p < 0.001). Factors associated with greater golimumab retention in Cox regression included use as first-line biological therapy, having axial SpA or PsA rather than RA, and concomitant methotrexate therapy. Steroids were associated with lower retention. Conclusion: In this real-world study of RA, axial SpA, and PsA patients, the retention rate of golimumab was 39.5% at year 7. Key Points • Retention of biological treatment provides a marker of drug effectiveness and patient satisfaction. • This real-world study of 685 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) showed that golimumab treatment had a retention rate up to 39.5% at year 7. • Greater golimumab retention was associated with use as first-line biological therapy, having axial SpA or PsA rather than RA, and concomitant methotrexate therapy [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]