Search

Objective: Treatment options with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have evolved over recent years. In addition to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), four classes of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs; interleukin [IL]-23 inhibitors [IL-23i], IL-12/23 inhibitors [IL-12/23i], tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi], and IL-17 inhibitors [IL-17i]) are currently approved for moderate to severe PsA treatment. There is minimal evidence of the persistence of these drugs among PsA outpatients in a real-world scenario during the period following the approval of JAKi. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the drug survival rates of biologic and JAKi therapies among German PsA outpatients during routine clinical care., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed PsA patients with a new prescription for a biologic or JAKi in the RHADAR database between January 2015 and October 2023. Kaplan-Meier Curves and Cox regression modelling were used to compare drug survival rates., Results: 1352 new prescriptions with bDMARDs (IL-12/23i [n=50], IL-23i [n=31], TNFi [n=774], IL-17i [n=360]) or JAKi (n=137) were identified. The 5-year drug survival rate was 67.8% for IL-17i, 62.3% for TNFi, 53.3% for JAKi, and 46.0% for IL-12/23i. Discontinuation probabilities for JAKi and IL-12/23i were significantly higher compared with TNFi (JAKi hazard ratio [HR] 1.66, [95% CI 1.23-2.24], p=0.001; IL-12/23i HR 1.54, [95% CI 1.02-2.33], p=0.042) and IL-17i (JAKi HR 1.77, [95% CI 1.27-2.47], p=0.001; IL-12/23i HR 1.64, [95% CI 1.06-2.55], p=0.027). JAKi-treated patients had more severe disease and more osteoarthritis (OA) compared to TNFi and more OA compared to IL-17i., Conclusion: German PsA outpatients might persist longer with TNFi and IL-17i compared with IL-12/23i or JAKi. For TNFi, differences in subgroup characteristics and comorbidities (OA) may have affected drug survival rates. For IL-17i, the longer drug survival might not only be related to less OA compared to JAKi and, therefore, might be affected by other factors., Competing Interests: P-PS received speaker’s fees and travel grants from Janssen-Cilag Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Boehringer/Ingelheim and AbbVie less than $10,000 each as well as research funding from Chugai 25000$. ME received payment for data analysis from RHADAR and consulting fees from Abbvie and RHADAR as well as speaker fees and honoraria for lectures from Sanofi, Swedish orphan Biovitrum and Abbvie. ME leadership or fiduciary role from Chugai. LR declares that he has received travel and meeting support from Abbvie and Boehringer and speaking fees from Novartis. TW received honoraria for lectures from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. MF received speaker’s fees, travel grants or compensation for board memberships from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen, Hexal, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB and Eli Lilly. MS received speaker’s fees, travel grants, research funding, or compensation for consultancies or board memberships from AbbVie, Actelion, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer/Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai/Roche, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Gilead, Hexal/Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Takeda Shire, UCB less than $ 10,000 each. MG received travel grants, compensation for advisory boards or speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda. SS-M received speaker fees from Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Boerhringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Galapagos, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB. SK received grants from Abbvie, Novartis, and sparrow for phase 2/3 clinical trials and consulting or speaker fees from Abbvie, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Novartis, and Siemens Healthineers. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Strunz, Englbrecht, Risser, Witte, Froehlich, Schmalzing, Gernert, Schmieder, Bartz-Bazzanella, von der Decken, Karberg, Gauler, Wurth, Späthling-Mestekemper, Kuhn, Vorbrüggen, Heck, Welcker and Kleinert.)

The categorization of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into radiographic (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic (nr-axSpA) subtypes is important in clinical trials but may be of less value in clinical practice. This exploratory cross-sectional, multi-center study evaluated patients with axSpA under routine care at German clinical rheumatology sites (RHADAR real-world database), with a focus on imaging data used for diagnostic classifications. Our analyses included 371 patients with axSpA. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 50.9 (14.0) years, disease duration was 16.4 (13.5) years, and 39.6% were female. Based on the rheumatologist's final assessment, almost half of patients had definite r-axSpA (n = 179; 48.2%), 53 (14.3%) had suspected r-axSpA, 112 (30.2%) had non-radiographic-axSpA (nr-axSpA), and 27 (7.3%) had undefined axSpA. Patients assessed with definite or suspected r-axSpA were more likely to be treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (62.0% and 64.2%, respectively) compared with nr-axSpA or undefined axSpA patients (37.5% and 48.1%, respectively). Almost all patients (348/371; 93.8%) had sacroiliac joint imaging data (radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging) documented in their charts, but only 216 (58.2%) had conventional radiographs required for formal diagnosis of r-axSpA by modified New York criteria. Follow-up radiographic imaging in nr-axSpA patients was uncommon (23/216 [25.0%]) but confirmed r-axSpA in 9/23 patients (39.1%). In conclusion, radiographs were available for slightly more than half of axSpA patients. Follow-up imaging was infrequent during rheumatology care in Germany but confirmed r-axSpA in ~ 40% of patients originally considered to have nr-axSpA. The distinction between r-axSpA and nr-axSpA may be ill-defined in routine clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: To analyze therapy adherence, safety, and outcome in adult patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treated with the etanercept biosimilar Benepali ® (Biogen Inc, Cambridge, USA)., Methods: Data from the prospective registry, JuMBO (Juvenile arthritis MTX/Biologics long-term Observation), were used for the analysis. JuMBO is a long-term observational cohort study. It follows adult patients with JIA who were formerly included in the national JIA biologic register (BiKeR Registry). Both registries provide individual trajectories of clinical data and outcomes from childhood to adulthood in JIA patients treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs)., Results: Eighty-three patients from the German JuMBO registry were treated with Benepali ® . Of these, 74% had switched from Enbrel ® (Pfizer Inc., NYC, USA) the originator of etanercept to Benepali ® for cost reasons. Therapy survival of patients treated with Benepali ® in comparison to Enbrel ® in patients matched by significant parameters was comparable. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 25.3% and serious adverse events (SAE) in 9.6% of patients. Physicians rated no SAE causative related to Benepali ® . The majority of SAEs were surgical/medical procedures and there was only one infection. All efficacy parameters (cJADAS-10, Physician Global Assessment, number of joints with active arthritis, patients' overall well-being, pain, and HAQ) demonstrated improvement over 24 months (p-values were not significant). 9.6% of patients permanently discontinued Benepali® because of an AE., Conclusions: Tolerability and effectiveness of the biosimilar Benepali ® were satisfactory and therapy survival was comparable to the originator. Further data on therapy with biologics and biosimilars such as Benepali ® must be collected by registries such as BiKeR and JuMBO in order to optimize therapy and patient outcomes and to reduce costs in the health system in the long term., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To determine the non-inferiority of nurse-led care (NLC) in patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive and/or rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with active disease who are starting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, following treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations., Methods: A multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess clinical effectiveness, anxiety, depression and patient satisfaction following a non-inferiority design. The participants were 224 adults with ACPA/RF-positive RA who were randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC). The primary outcome was the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints measured with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A DAS28-CRP difference of 0.6 was set as the non-inferiority margin. Mean differences between the groups were assessed following per-protocol and intention-to-treat strategies., Results: Demographic data and baseline characteristics of patients in the NLC group (n=111) were comparable to those of patients in the RLC group (n=113). The improvement in disease activity (change in DAS28-CRP, primary outcome) over the course of 12 months was significant in both groups (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the NLC and RLC groups (p=0.317). Non-inferiority of NLC was shown for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes., Conclusion: This study supported the non-inferiority of NLC in managing T2T and follow-up care of patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity and poor prognostic factors in addition to RLC., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00013055., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JH, JZ, SEM, TW and UvH: none declared; GG has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Abbvie, Lilly, Gilead, Celgene and Novartis; PSK has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Sanofi, Mylan and Lilly. MW has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Abbvie, Actelion, Aescu, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Berlin Chemie, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Sanofi, SOBI and UCB. JW has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Janssen, Abbvie, Roche, Chugai and Novartis. FS has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Novartis, Abbvie and Gilead. AS has received grants from Pfizer, GSK and Novartis, and has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for GSK and Roche. DMO has received grants from Novartis and Sandoz Hexal and has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz Hexal and Sanofi. KH has undertaken consultancies and speakers’ bureau for Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Lilly, Celgene, UCB, Sandoz Hexal, Sanofi and Gilead., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)