Search

Background: Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), albeit high drug cost has restricted their use in many countries. As a countermeasure, Norway implemented pharmaceutical tendering as a cost-reducing strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the annual proportion of different b/tsDMARDs registered to treat RA patients under the influence of a Norwegian pharmaceutical tendering between 2010 and 2019. Method: The data is collected from ten Norwegian outpatient centers. The included patients are categorized as naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users. 13 individual b/tsDMARDs are assessed and compared with the tender rankings from each year. Overview of subcutaneous (sc) with per oral vs. intravenous (iv) and biosimilars vs. non-biosimilar are also described. Result: The tender-winning b/tsDMARD was the most or second most used drug in nine out of ten years for naïve users, seven for non-naïve users, and twice for current users. The average sum of the highest and second highest proportion among naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users were 75%, 53%, and 50% during the ten years, respectively. The tender-winning drug was iv in eight out of ten years. However, the average total proportion of sc and per oral b/tsDMARDs was about 70% for naïve b/tsDMARD users, 50% for non-naïve b/tsDMARD users, and 60% for current b/tsDMARD users. The main contributors to sc and per oral b/tsDMARD were etanercept (reference and biosimilar) and certolizumab pegol. The main contributors to iv b/tsDMARD were rituximab reference and infliximab biosimilar. Despite low-ranking offers, rituximab reference (offered as a second-line drug) often achieved a high proportion among non-naïve and current b/tsDMARD users. After the introduction of biosimilars, their average proportion was about 40%, 40%, and 20% for naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users, respectively. Conclusion: Based on observed data, a higher tender rank was associated with a higher proportion among naïve and non-naïve b/tsDMARD users. However, in most cases, sc b/tsDMARDs achieved a higher proportion with lower tender ranks than iv b/tsDMARDs with higher tender ranks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Norway, an annual tender system for the prescription of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) has been used since 2007. This study aimed to explore annual b/tsDMARDs costs and disease outcomes in Norwegian rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients between 2010 and 2019 under the influence of the tender system.Methods: RA patients monitored in ordinary clinical practice were recruited from 10 Norwegian centers. Data files from each center for each year were collected to explore demographics, disease outcomes, and the prescribed treatment. The cost of b/tsDMARDs was calculated based on the drug price given in the annual tender process.Results: The number of registered RA patients increased from 4909 in 2010 to 9335 in 2019. The percentage of patients receiving a b/tsDMARD was 39% in 2010 and 45% in 2019. The proportion of b/tsDMARDs treated patients achieving DAS28 remission increased from 42 to 67%. The estimated mean annual cost to treat a patient on b/tsDMARDs fell by 47%, from 13.1 thousand euros (EUR) in 2010 to 6.9 thousand EUR in 2019. The mean annual cost to treat b/tsDMARDs naïve patients was reduced by 75% (13.0 thousand EUR in 2010 and 3.2 thousand EUR in 2019).Conclusions: In the period 2010-2019, b/tsDMARD treatment costs for Norwegian RA patients were significantly reduced, whereas DAS28 remission rates increased. Our data may indicate that the health authorities' intention to reduce treatment costs by implementing a tender system has been successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To compare limited with a more extended ultrasound examination (anteromedial ultrasound, A2-ultrasound) to detect large vessel (LV) involvement in patients with newly diagnosed GCA. Methods Patients with new-onset GCA were included at the time of diagnosis. All patients were examined using limited ultrasound (ultrasound of the axillary artery as visualized in the axilla) and an extended A2-ultrasound method (which also includes the carotid, vertebral, subclavian and proximal axillary arteries), in addition to temporal artery ultrasound. Results One hundred and thirty-three patients were included in the study. All patients fulfilled the criteria according to a proposed extension of the 1990 ACR classification criteria for GCA and had a positive ultrasound examination at diagnosis. Ninety-three of the 133 GCA patients (69.9%) had LV involvement when examined by extended A2-ultrasound, compared with only 56 patients (42.1%) by limited ultrasound (P  < 0.001). Twelve patients (9.0%) had vasculitis of the vertebral arteries as the only LVs involved. Five patients (3.8%) would have been missed as having GCA if only limited ultrasound was performed. Forty patients (30.0%) had isolated cranial GCA, 21 patients (15.8%) had isolated large vessel GCA and 72 patients (54.1%) had mixed-GCA. Conclusion Extended A2-ultrasound examination identified more patients with LV involvement than the limited ultrasound method. However, extended A2-ultrasound requires high expertise and high-end equipment and should be performed by ultrasonographers with adequate training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

GCA is the most common large vessel vasculitis in the elderly population. In recent years, advanced imaging has changed the way GCA can be diagnosed in many locations. The GCA fast-track clinic approach combined with US examination allows prompt treatment and diagnosis with high certainty. Fast-track clinics have been shown to improve prognosis while being cost effective. However, all diagnostic modalities are highly operator dependent, and in many locations expertise in advanced imaging may not be available. In this paper, we review the current evidence on GCA diagnostics and propose a simple algorithm for diagnosing GCA for use by rheumatologists not working in specialist centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]