Search

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously. RESULTS: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4). CONCLUSION: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Contains fulltext : 291297.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously. RESULTS: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4). CONCLUSION: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: In patients with RA treated with (ultra-)low-dose rituximab (RTX), we investigated the association of dosing and timing of RTX on seroconversion after a third coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and the persistence of humoral response after a two-dose vaccination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this monocentre observational study, patients from the COVAC cohort were included in the third vaccine analysis if humoral response was obtained 2-6 weeks after a third vaccination in previous non-responders and in the persistence analysis if a follow-up humoral response was obtained before a third vaccination in previous responders. Dichotomization between positive and negative response was based on the assay cut-off. The association between the latest RTX dose before first vaccination, timing between the latest RTX dose and vaccination and response was analysed with univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients in the cohort, 98 were included in the third vaccine analysis and 23 in the persistence analysis. Third vaccination response was 19/98 (19%) and was higher for 200 mg RTX users [5/13 (38%)] than for 500 and 1000 mg users [7/37 (19%) and 7/48 (15%), respectively]. Non-significant trends were seen for higher response with lower dosing [200 vs 1000 mg: odds ratio (OR) 3.66 (95% CI 0.93, 14.0)] and later timing [per month since infusion: OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.97, 1.35)]. Humoral response persisted in 96% (22/23) and 89% (8/9) of patients who received RTX between the two measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated vaccination as late as possible after the lowest RTX dose possible seems the best vaccination strategy. A once positive humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination persists irrespective of intercurrent RTX infusion. Study registration. Netherlands Trial Registry (https://www.trialregister.nl/), NL9342.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVES: In patients with RA treated with (ultra-)low-dose rituximab (RTX), we investigated the association of dosing and timing of RTX on seroconversion after a third coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and the persistence of humoral response after a two-dose vaccination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this monocentre observational study, patients from the COVAC cohort were included in the third vaccine analysis if humoral response was obtained 2-6 weeks after a third vaccination in previous non-responders and in the persistence analysis if a follow-up humoral response was obtained before a third vaccination in previous responders. Dichotomization between positive and negative response was based on the assay cut-off. The association between the latest RTX dose before first vaccination, timing between the latest RTX dose and vaccination and response was analysed with univariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 196 patients in the cohort, 98 were included in the third vaccine analysis and 23 in the persistence analysis. Third vaccination response was 19/98 (19%) and was higher for 200 mg RTX users [5/13 (38%)] than for 500 and 1000 mg users [7/37 (19%) and 7/48 (15%), respectively]. Non-significant trends were seen for higher response with lower dosing [200 vs 1000 mg: odds ratio (OR) 3.66 (95% CI 0.93, 14.0)] and later timing [per month since infusion: OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.97, 1.35)]. Humoral response persisted in 96% (22/23) and 89% (8/9) of patients who received RTX between the two measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated vaccination as late as possible after the lowest RTX dose possible seems the best vaccination strategy. A once positive humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination persists irrespective of intercurrent RTX infusion. Study registration. Netherlands Trial Registry (https://www.trialregister.nl/), NL9342.

Contains fulltext : 251805.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342.

Contains fulltext : 251805.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342.