Search

Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are widely used for the treatment of chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Since the introduction of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-) inhibitors, the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has been revolutionized. The approach of targeting TNF- has considerably improved the success of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Their effectiveness has been extensively proven in randomized clinical trials and in clinical practice. Randomized clinical trials and post-marketing studies proved that patients undergoing TNF- inhibitors therapy are at increased risk of infectious disease, bacterial, viral, fungal, opportunistic, oncology and skin adverse effects such as psoriasis and angiitis of the skin. In this case report drug-induced cutaneous vasculitis developing during TNF- inhibitor (Etanercept) treatment for rheumatoid arthritis is described.

Background/aim: to evaluate treatment adherence and predictors of drug discontinuation among patients with inflammatory arthritis receiving bDMARDs within the first 100 days after the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: a total of 1871 patients recorded in TReasure registry for whom advanced therapy was prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) within the 3 months (6-9 months for rituximab) before the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated, and 1394 (74.5%) responded to the phone survey. Patients' data regarding demographic, clinical characteristics and disease activity before the pandemic were recorded. The patients were inquired about the diagnosis of COVID-19, the rate of continuation on bDMARDs, the reasons for treatment discontinuation, if any, and the current general disease activity (visual analog scale, [VAS]). Results: a total of 1394 patients (493 RA [47.3% on anti-TNF] patients and 901 SpA [90.0% on anti-TNF] patients) were included in the study. Overall, 2.8% of the patients had symptoms suggesting COVID-19, and 2 (0.15%) patients had PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Overall, 18.1% of all patients (13.8% of the RA and 20.5% of the SpA; p = 0.003) discontinued their bDMARDs. In the SpA group, the patients who discontinued bDMARDs were younger (40 [21-73] vs. 44 years [20-79]; p = 0.005) and had higher general disease activity; however, no difference was relevant for RA patients. Conclusion: although the COVID-19 was quite uncommon in the first 100 days of the pandemic, nearly one-fifth of the patients discontinued bDMARDs within this period. The long-term effects of the pandemic should be monitored., Hacettepe Rheumatology Society

Objective: to study the safety and efficacy of the 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (PPV-23) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).Patients and methods. The study included 75 patients with definite diagnosis of SLE at the age of 19–68 years, 10 (13%) of them had high SLE activity, 18 (24%) – moderate, 42 (56%) – low, in 5 (7%) patients the disease was in remission. PPV-23 was injected subcutaneously in a single dose of 0.5 ml. In 60 patients the follow-up period was ≥12 months, in 15 – from 2 to 6 months. Patients were examined before and 1, 3 and 12 months after immunization.Results and discussion. In 38 (50.7%) patients, standard local vaccination reactions of mild and moderate severity were noted, in 1 (1.3%) – a general reaction of mild severity, in 2 (2.7%) – mild diarrhea during 1 day, in 1 (1.3%) – a hyperergic reaction of the Artyus phenomenon type, the symptoms were relieved within 7 days. During 12 months of follow-up, neither exacerbations of SLE, reliably associated with vaccination, nor new autoimmune phenomena, were detected. After 1 year of observation, the number of responders to vaccination was 58%, non-responders – 42%. The duration and activity of the disease, age over 50 years, glucocorticoid therapy > 10 mg per day, did not significantly affect the vaccine response. There was a decrease in the immune response in patients on biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) therapy compared to patients without such treatment (43 and 68% of cases, respectively), p=0.058. There was no difference between rituximab and belimumab treated subjects. There was a tendency for the prevalence of vaccination responses among patients, who received bDMARDs Conclusion. Sufficient immunogenicity, good tolerability and clinical efficacy of PPV-23 in patients with SLE, including those who received combined immunosuppressive therapy, have been shown. The use of bDMARDs reduces the number of patients with a vaccine response. The number of responders to vaccination increases when immunization is carried out before the initiation of therapy with bDMARDs or when this therapy is initiated

There have been major advances in the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with the introduction of effective biologic agents targeting TNF and IL-17A. Clinicians now have more choice but, despite treatment recommendations, are still faced with significant uncertainty when deciding on the optimal treatment strategy for an individual patient in clinical practice. Management of axSpA typically requires both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. NSAIDs remain the first line drug therapies for axSpA with proven efficacy for symptomatic management but uncertainty remains regarding their optimal long-term use relating to radiographic progression and safety in axSpA. To-date there are no head-to-head trials of biologics in axSpA. Clinicians need to consider other factors, including extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, safety and radiographic progression when deciding on which biologic to recommend for an individual patient. This article will explore the evidence relating to these factors and highlight areas of unmet need.

Introduction The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. Methods This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. Results A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. Conclusion This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00218-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with immunosuppressive effects, may be at increased risk of vaccine-preventable infections. This substudy assessed protective antibody responses to diphtheria and tetanus vaccination given prior to study enrolment in patients with pJIA. Findings This was a substudy of a 24-month, single-arm, open-label, multicenter, Phase III trial (NCT01844518) of subcutaneous abatacept in children with active pJIA (N = 219). Patients aged 2–5 years, with ≥2 continuous months of weekly weight-tiered (10– 0.1 IU/mL), and safety, were assessed. Overall, 29 patients were analyzed: 19 (65.5%), 1 (3.4%) and 9 (31.0%) patients had > 12, 6–12 and 2– Conclusions Patients aged 2–5 years with pJIA who received 2–24 months of weekly subcutaneous abatacept, with or without concomitant methotrexate and/or low-dose corticosteroids, maintained effective diphtheria and tetanus vaccination protection without new safety signals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844518); registered May 1, 2013; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01844518?term=NCT01844518&rank=1

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

Background: the course of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been of special concern in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) due to the immune dysregulation that may be associated with these diseases and the medications used for IRDs, that may affect innate immune responses. Objective: in this cohort study, we aimed to report the disease characteristics and variables associated with COVID-19 outcome among Turkish patients with IRDs. Methods: between April and June, 2020, 167 adult IRD patients with COVID-19 were registered from 31 centers in 14 cities in Turkey. Disease outcome was classified in 4 categories; (i) outpatient management, (ii) hospitalization without oxygen requirement, (iii) hospitalization with oxygen requirement, and (iv) intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine variables associated with a worse outcome. Results: 165 patients (mean age: 50 ± 15.6 years, 58.2% female) were included. Twenty-four patients (14.5%) recovered under outpatient management, 141 (85.5%) were hospitalized, 49 (30%) required inpatient oxygen support, 22 (13%) were treated in the ICU (17 received invasive mechanic ventilation) and 16 (10%) died. Glucocorticoid use (OR: 4.53, 95%CI 1.65-12.76), chronic kidney disease (OR: 12.8, 95%CI 2.25-103.5), pulmonary disease (OR: 2.66, 95%CI 1.08-6.61) and obesity (OR: 3.7, 95%CI 1.01-13.87) were associated with a worse outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) do not seem to affect COVID-19 outcome while conventional synthetic DMARDs may have a protective effect (OR: 0.36, 95%CI 0.17-0.75). Estimates for the associations between IRD diagnoses and outcome were inconclusive. Conclusions: among IRD patients with COVID-19, comorbidities and glucocorticoid use were associated with a worse outcome, while biologic DMARDs do not seem to be associated with a worse outcome., NA

To date, the impact of background glucocorticoids (GC) on the efficacy and safety of abatacept or adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not clearly established. This post hoc analysis of (AMPLE) trial (NCT00929864) compared efficacy and safety outcomes over 2 years in patients treated with abatacept or adalimumab plus background methotrexate (MTX), who continued GC (&le, 10 mg/day) versus those who were not receiving GC (no-GC). Of 646 randomized patients, 317 received abatacept + MTX (161 GC, 156 no-GC) and 326 received adalimumab + MTX (162 GC, 164 no-GC). At Year 2, the adjusted mean changes from baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS28 C-reactive protein (CRP)) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were not significantly different in the GC versus no-GC subgroups receiving abatacept or adalimumab. A similar proportion of patients achieved remission, HAQ-DI score improvement &ge, 0.3 and radiographic progression rates. No clinically meaningful safety differences were observed between GC versus no-GC subgroups either with abatacept or adalimumab. In patients with active RA of similar baseline disease activity treated with abatacept or adalimumab plus background MTX, there was no additional value of background GC on clinical, functional or radiographic outcomes over two years.

Patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) have an increased risk for tuberculosis (TB). The use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and glucocorticoids in these patients has been associated with an increased prevalence of latent TB reactivation. Over the last few years, several biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), other than TNFi (e.g. rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab, secukinumab) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) [e.g. apremilast, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors] have been used for the treatment of patients with ARD. For many of these drugs, especially the newer ones like JAK inhibitors or antibodies against interleukin (IL)-23, most data stem from randomized clinical trials and few are available from real life clinical experience. We sought to review the current evidence for TB risk in patients with ARD treated with tsDMARDs or bDMARDs, other than TNFi. It seems that some of these drugs are associated with a lower TB risk, indirectly compared with TNFi treatment. In fact, it appears that rituximab, apremilast and inhibitors of IL-17 and IL-23 might be safer, while more data are needed for JAK inhibitors. As seen in TNFi, risk for TB is more pronounced in TB-endemic areas. Screening for latent TB must precede initiation of any tsDMARDs or bDMARDs. The growing use of non-TNFi agents has raised the need for more real-life studies that would compare the risk for TB between TNFi and other treatment modalities for ARD. Knowledge about the TB-safety profile of these drugs could help in the decision of drug choice in patients with confirmed latent TB infection or in TB endemic areas.

Summary Background Information is scarce about biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) switching patterns in children and young people (aged ≤16 years) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in an era of many biologic therapies. The best choice of biologic to use if the first biological DMARD is not beneficial also remains unclear. We aimed to quantify and characterise biologic switching patterns in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and to compare the effectiveness of using a second tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus non-TNF is following failure of a first TNFi biologic in routine clinical practice. Methods Our study population comprised patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who were enrolled in two parallel UK cohort studies (the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study [BSPAR-ETN] and the Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases [BCRD] study) between Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019. Data on disease characteristics and DMARD therapy were collected at the time of initiation of a first biologic, at 6 months, at 1 year, and annually thereafter. Biologic switching patterns were described in all patients who started their first biologic from Jan 1, 2010, onwards. Among patients who started treatment with their first biologic from Jan 1, 2004, onwards, had polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (extended oligoarthritis or polyarthritis [positive or negative for rheumatoid factor]), and who had started a second biologic, we assessed changes in outcome variables at 6 months compared with baseline and compared the proportion of patients who achieved an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 90 response and minimal disease activity at 6 months on the basis of the class of the second biologic (a second TNFi vs non-TNFi biologic). Changes in outcome variables at 6 months were compared using linear regression or logistic regression, adjusted for propensity quintiles to account for confounding by indication. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data. Findings Between Jan 1, 2004, and April 11, 2019, 2361 patients were enrolled on initiation of biologic therapy. From Jan 1, 2010, onwards, 1152 patients started their first biologic, most of whom started treatment with TNFis (1050 [91%]). The median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·1–3·8). During this time, 270 (23%) of 1152 patients started a second biologic, 61 (5%) started a third biologic, and 11 (1%) started a fourth biologic. Among 240 patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 194 (81%) started a second TNFi and 46 (19%) started a non-TNFi after an initial TNFi had failed. Choice of second treatment (second TNFi vs non-TNFi biologic) did not affect the proportion of patients who achieved an ACR Pedi 90 response (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·5, 95% CI 0·8–7·9; p=0·11) or minimal disease activity (adjusted OR 1·6, 95% CI 0·6–3·8; p=0·33). Interpretation For many children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, treatment with a first or second biologic is not beneficial. We found no evidence that switching to a second non-TNFi biologic was more beneficial than a second TNFi. Funding Versus Arthritis and The British Society for Rheumatology.

Background: To determine the conversion and reversion rates of tuberculosis (TB) screening tests (Tuberculin Skin Test-TST, Interferon Gamma Release Assay-IGRA: T-SPOT.TB) during biologic treatment in patients with rheumatic diseases and negative baseline screening.Methods: This was a long-term, longitudinal cohort study of 50 patients with rheumatic diseases and negative baseline TB screening (TST

Saeed Akhlaghi,1 Maryam Sahebari,2 Mahmoud Mahmoodi,1 Mehdi Yaseri,1 Mohammad Ali Mansournia,1 Houshang Rafatpanah,3 Hojjat Zeraati1 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; 2Rheumatic Diseases Research Center (RDRC), Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran; 3Inflammation and Inflammatory Diseases Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Purpose: One of the most important long-term side effects of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the elevation of liver function tests, with earlier studies reporting an elevation of more than 1× the upper limit of normal (>1 × ULN). The current study expands the literature by comparing the trends of transaminase changes caused by conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).Patients and methods: The drug categories examined were methotrexate (MTX) and all other nonbiologic DMARDs. Where RA patients exhibited inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs), we added biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) to the treatment. We compared the trend of changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) in the patients receiving MTX with the trend observed in the patients whose treatment encompassed both bDMARDs and MTX. The comparison was conducted using random intercept models, which are a type of linear mixed effects model.Results: This work involved 512 RA patients (MTX: 450, MTX + infliximab [INF]: 26, MTX + etanercept [ETA]: 36), whose ALT and/or AST levels were measured in 1,786 visits (MTX: 1,543, MTX + INF: 107, MTX + ETA: 136). ALT and/or AST elevations greater than 1 × ULN were observed in 344 (19.3%) visits (MTX: 295 [19.1%], MTX + INF/ETA: 49 [20.2%]). In this study, the trends of ALT and AST changes increased when receiving MTX, while the INF/ETA addition decreased these trends. The random intercept models indicated that changes in the mean ALT levels were significantly different over the time for MTX and MTX + INF/ETA groups (β [SE] =-0.190 [0.093], P= 0.040) but changes in the mean AST levels were nonsignificantly different over the time for such groups (β [SE] =-0.099 [0.064], P=0.120).Conclusion: Despite a higher incidence of elevated transaminases during the use of MTX + INF/ETA, the combination of INF/ETA with MTX reduced transaminase levels and returned ALT levels to normal concentrations. Keywords: longitudinal, ALT, AST, DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, MTX

Background The impact of smoking on TNF inhibition (TNFi) therapy is unclear. We examined the effect of smoking on all-cause and cause-specific TNFi discontinuation in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods We used longitudinal data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS). Patients fulfilling the ASAS criteria for axSpA, who started their first TNFi, were eligible for analysis. Inverse-probability weights were used to balance differences in baseline disease severity and other confounders. We used marginal structural Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for TNFi discontinuation according to smoking status. In analyses of cause-specific discontinuation, competing risk events were considered as censoring, using inverse-probability weights. Results A total of 758 participants were included in the analysis (66% male, mean age 45 years), providing 954 patient-years of follow-up. TNFi was discontinued in 174 (23%) patients, among whom 26% stopped due to infections, 20% due to other adverse events and 44% due to inefficacy or other reasons. Thirty-four percent were current smokers and 30% ex-smokers. Compared to never smokers, current smokers’ risk of TNFi discontinuation was HR 0.79 (95%CI 0.53 to 1.20) and ex-smokers HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.45 to 1.04). Our data did not show evidence that current smoking influenced discontinuation due to infections (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.54), other adverse events (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.78) or inefficacy/other causes (HR 1.44, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.41). Conclusion Baseline smoking status did not impact TNFi discontinuation in this UK cohort of axSpA participants. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1958-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS) is a disabling auto-immune disease, affecting exocrine glands and several organs.Areas covered: In this review we analyze the safety of therapies used in pSS. Symptomatic treatment is widely applied due to the good supportive effect and good safety profile. Systemic stimulation of tears and saliva can be successful in pSS. However, cumbersome adverse events can influence the tolerability of this therapy. Evidence for the effectiveness of synthetic DMARDs therapies in pSS is limited, while there is a risk of adverse events. Several studies on biologic DMARD treatment of pSS patients have shown promising efficacy and safety results.Expert opinion: The safety of symptomatic treatment of pSS is very good. However, systemic therapy is necessary to achieve long-term relieve and prevention of organ-damage. Synthetic DMARDs have not shown much efficacy in earlier studies, and their benefits do not weigh up to the possible harms, while biologic DMARDs show promising results regarding efficacy and cause mostly mild adverse events. Many questions remain unanswered regarding safety of DMARDs in pSS. There is a need for well designed studies, in which safety should be evaluated in a uniform manner to be able to compare the results between studies.

Objective Medication non-adherence is a substantial problem among patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Our aim was to explore IA patients’ perspectives on strategies to support medication adherence. Methods We collaborated with a leading arthritis patient group and conducted a qualitative study on individuals with IA who were taking at least one medication for their IA. An experienced facilitator led participants through a focus group exercise where participants were asked to design, and then discuss, strategies and/or tools supporting medication use. We applied thematic analysis using an iterative, constant comparative approach. Results We studied six focus groups with 27 participants diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and comparatively under-represented conditions in this research area such as Sjögren’s syndrome. Five themes emerged throughout the analysis. Two themes – 1) adapting to life with IA and 2) the complexities and dynamic nature of taking medications – describe learning to live with a chronic condition and the challenges encountered when using long-term medications. Three themes – 3) developing lifestyle strategies for medication use (eg, having physical reminders and prompts), 4) becoming informed about medications (eg, information at time of diagnosis, means of receiving information) and 5) receiving support (eg, from health care team members, from family) – offer perspectives on facilitators to medication use. From the relationship between the latter themes, a framework was developed that encompasses means of receiving information and support as actionable targets for patient-oriented adherence interventions for IA. Conclusion This patient-oriented study highlights the importance of developing timely adherence interventions for IA. Our findings also led to a framework describing means of receiving information, such as through digital media and support, including from health care team members and family, as actionable targets for patient-oriented adherence interventions for IA., Video abstract

Background Treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has raised concerns about the risk of malignancies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, the association between biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and malignancy in previous reports remains controversial. Therefore we aimed to estimate the incidence of malignancy in early RA patients and to evaluate the relative risk of malignancy with use of bDMARDs. Methods A retrospective cohort of incident RA patients was established using the Korean National Claims Database. Among a total of 14,081 RA patients identified, 1684 patients with a history of malignancy were excluded. We calculated the incidence rate of overall and individual malignancies. The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of malignancies in bDMARD users was compared to that in nonusers. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of bDMARDs on the development of malignancies in early RA patients. Results A total of 12,397 early RA patients without a history of malignancy were enrolled. During 41,599 person-years (PY) of follow-up, 725 malignancies developed in 561 patients (174.3/10,000 PY) and 21 hematologic malignancies developed (5.0/10,000 PY). Patients treated with bDMARDs had a significantly lower incidence of overall malignancy compared to those not treated with bDMARDs (SIR 0.45 (95% CI 0.28–0.70)). However, this relationship was not significant with regard to hematologic malignancies (SIR 2.65 (95% CI 0.55–7.76)). On multivariable analysis, bDMARD use was a protective factor against the development of overall malignancy (odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.25–0.73)). However, bDMARD use had no significant protective effect against the development of hematologic malignancies (odds ratio 1.69 (95% CI 0.38–7.59)). Conclusions In early RA patients, bDMARD use decreases the overall risk of developing malignancies; however, it does not affect the risk of developing hematologic malignancies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-017-1482-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives Hepatitis B (HBV) infection, which is prevalent worldwide, is also frequently seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) and the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases (SIMIT) endorsed a national consensus process to review the available evidence on HBV management in RA patients and to produce practical, hospital-wide recommendations. Methods The consensus panel consisted of infectious disease consultants, rheumatologists and epidemiologists and used the criteria of the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of their recommendations. Results A core-set of statements has been developed to help clinicians in the management of patients with RA and HBV infection. Vaccination and prophylaxis of RA patients treated with biological drugs have been also discussed. Conclusions HBV infection is not rare in clinical practice; a screening for HBV in all patients with early arthritis is not universally accepted, while it is considered mandatory before starting any immunosuppressive or hepatotoxic treatment. In fact, a specific risk, associated with the use of biologic treatments, exists for patients with HBV infection, although longitudinal studies of viral reactivation are generally reassuring. RA patients with HBV infection should be referred to the hepatologist and correctly classified into active or inactive carriers. Patients with active hepatitis B should undergo antiviral treatment before starting immunosuppressive treatments. Occult HBV carriers should be monitored or receive prophylaxis on the basis of the risk of reactivation associated with the administered treatment.

Objectives:Our aim was to compare an AntiCD20 therapy (rituximab) for rheumatoid arthritis in two patient populations (Group 1), anti-TNFα naïve patients and inadequate responders to Anti-TNFα therapy (Group 2).Methods:We analyzed the efficacy of the drug Rituximab (RTX) in RA patients who failed methotrexate (MTX) or had a relative or absolute contraindication to receive anti-TNFα therapy.Results:25 patients were identified according to the above criteria and followed up for a mean period of 6 months. Thirteen patients were biologic naïve and twelve patients had already failed anti-TNFα therapy. Group 1 used 2> DMARDs (32%vs20%, pv s4.10±3.92, pvs2.15±1.64, pConclusions:Comparing clinical improvement in both groups the decrease of acute phase reactants and the clinical remission measured by DAS28 was reached in both groups, however it was reached more belatedly in group 2 (at 6 months), this is due to the fact that they have more years of the disease evolution and a higher HAQ.

To monitor whether biologic DMARD (bDMARD) home storage temperatures comply with the manufacturers' Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) recommendations.This observational study included consenting adult patients from eight Dutch pharmacies who received their bDMARDs with a validated temperature logger. Patients were instructed to store their packages according to standard label instructions and to return the temperature logger(s) after use. Primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients that stored their bDMARDs within the SmPC recommended temperature range. In addition, the proportion of patients storing bDMARDs below 0?C or above 25 ?C for longer than two consecutive hours was estimated.A total of 255 (87.0%) patients (mean age 53.2 (s.d.; 13.1) years, 51.4% female) returned their temperature logger(s) to the pharmacy. Of these, 17 patients (6.7%) stored their bDMARD within the recommended temperature range. The proportion of the patients that stored their bDMARD for more than 2 h consecutive time below 0?C or above 25?C was respectively 24.3% (median duration: 3.7 h (IQR 2.2 h; range 2.0-1,097.1 h) and 2.0% (median duration: 11.8 h (IQR 44.3 h; range 2.0-381.9 h).The majority of patients do not store their bDMARDs within the SmPC-recommended temperature range.? The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Kristian Thorlund,1 Eric Druyts,2 J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta,3,4 Edward J Mills1,21Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 2Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 4Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaObjective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available tumor necrosis factor-a inhibitors (anti-TNFs) for the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).Methods: We used an exhaustive search strategy covering randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) published on anti-TNFs for PsA. We performed indirect comparisons of the available anti-TNFs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) measuring relative risks (RR) for the psoriatic arthritis response criteria (PsARC), mean differences (MDs) for improvements from baseline for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) by PsARC responders and non-responders, and MD for the improvements from baseline for the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI). When the reporting of data on intervention group response rates and improvements were incomplete, we used straightforward conversions based on the available data.Results: We retrieved data from 20 publications representing seven trials, as well as two HTAs. All anti-TNFs were significantly better than control, but the indirect comparison did not reveal any statistically significant difference between the anti-TNFs. For PsARC response, golimumab yielded the highest RR and etanercept the second highest; adalimumab and infliximab both yielded notably smaller RRs. For HAQ improvement, etanercept and infliximab yielded the largest MD among PsARC responders. For PsARC nonresponders, etanercept, infliximab, and golimumab yielded similar MDs, and adalimumab a notably lower MD. For PASI improvement, infliximab yielded the largest MD and golimumab the second largest, while etanercept yielded the smallest MD. In some instances, the estimated magnitudes of effect were notably different from the estimates of previous HTA indirect comparisons.Conclusion: There is insufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate differences in effectiveness between available anti-TNFs for PsA. Effect estimates seem sensitive to the analytic approach, and this uncertainty should be taken into account in future economic evaluations.Keywords: anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs, biologic DMARDs, indirect comparison meta-analysis, psoriatic arthritis, health assessment questionnaire, psoriatic arthritis response criteria, psoriasis area and severity indexCorrigendum for this paper has been published

Introduction In patients with inadequate response or intolerance to first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to an agent of different mechanism of action or to another bDMARD. However, the reasons behind switching between bDMARD/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD are not well documented in many studies. The objective of this study was to assess the rheumatologists’ perceptions and behaviors towards choice of initial b/tsDMARD treatment and reasons for switching between bDMARDs/tsDMARDs, in the context of present treatment patterns. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from the 12th Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qualified rheumatologists involved in treatment decision-making for ≥ 10 patients a month completed patient record forms (PRFs). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with RA diagnosis and receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD were included. The outcomes assessed were proportion of patients receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at molecule and class levels; rheumatologist-reported reasons for choice of therapy; proportion of patients who switched bDMARDs/tsDMARDs; and rheumatologist-reported reasons for switching therapies. Results Eighty-six rheumatologists completed PRFs for 1027 patients. Of these, 621 were receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at data collection. The majority (73%) of patients received first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, and at first-line, 68% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and 21% received a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). The response option of strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting first-line and second-line bDMARD/tsDMARD. A total of 163 patients had switched from first-line b/tsDMARD to second-line b/tsDMARD therapy. Of these, 44, 28, and 17% had switched from TNFi to another TNFi, TNFi to non-TNF biologic, and TNFi to JAKi, respectively. Lack of efficacy and worsening disease were the most frequent reasons for switching therapies. Conclusions TNFis remain the most prescribed b/tsDMARD for first-line and second-line treatments. Strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting therapy and loss of efficacy was the primary reason for switching therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00357-1.