Etanercept and adalimumab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathies in clinical practice: adverse events and other reasons leading to discontinuation of the treatment

The article presents the data of the Moscow Unified Arthritis Register (MUAR) and the results of rituximab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Aim: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of switching from the original rituximab (MabThera®) to its biosimilar (Acellbia®) in patients with RA in real clinical practice.Patients and Methods: patients with RA, included in MUAR register, were evaluated with an assessment of therapy efficacy and safety with the original rituximab (MabThera®), as well as after switching to the rituximab biosimilar (Acellbia®). A standard examination was performed to determine the number of swollen and tender joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. Treatment efficacy was assessed using the DAS28 composite index, HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index) and RAPID-3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3). In terms of safety, adverse events were recorded based on patient reports.Results: switching therapy regimen of 46 patients with RA from the original rituximab to the biosimilar was not accompanied by a decrease in the treatment efficacy. There was statistically significant increase in the proportion of the patients with low disease activity (DAS28<3.2) from 39.1% to 52.2% and remission (DAS28<2.6) from 17.4% to 23.9%, respectively. Further positive dynamics of HAQ-DI and RAPID-3 indices were noted. According to the authors, the increase in the frequency of a positive response to the treatment was associated with the duration of rituximab use in general. The frequency of adverse events during therapy with the original rituximab and its biosimilar was comparable: 9.22 and 10.9 per 100 patient years respectively.Conclusion: there were no significant differences between the original rituximab and its biosimilar. The results of switching therapy regimen of patients with RA from the original rituximab (MabThera®) to its biosimilar (Acellbia®), observed in real clinical practice, confirm their therapeutic equivalence.KEYWORDS: rheumatoid arthritis, rituximab, biosimilar, real clinical practice.FOR CITATION: Zhilyaev E.V., Koltsova E.N., Shmidt E.I. et al. Experience of using a genetically engineered biological drug biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real clinical practice. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2020;4(8):492–497. DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2020-4-8-492-497.

Download Full-text

Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients On Persistent Moderate Disease Activity On Biologics Have Adverse 5-years Outcome Compared To Persistent Low-remission Status Yet They Represent A Heterogeneous Group: Lower-moderate Has Better Functionality And Fewer Serious Adverse Events Than Higher-moderate Subgroup

10.21203/rs.3.rs-41068/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Irini Genitsaridi ◽

Irini Flouri ◽

Dimitris Plexousakis ◽

Konstantinos Marias ◽

Kyriaki Boki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Term Outcome ◽

Long Term Outcome ◽

Moderate Disease ◽

Moderate Disease Activity

Abstract Background The long-term outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who in clinical practice, exhibit persistent moderate disease activity (pMDA) despite treatment with biologics has not been adequately studied. Herein, we analyzed the 5-year outcome of the pMDA group and assessed for within-group heterogeneity. Methods We included longitudinally-monitored RA patients from the Hellenic Registry of Biologic Therapies with persistent (cumulative time ≥50% of a 5-year period) moderate (pMDA, 3.2<DAS28≤5.1) or remission/low (pRLDA, DAS28≤3.2) disease activity. The former was further classified into persistent lower-moderate (plMDA, DAS28<4.2) and higher-moderate (phMDA, DAS28≥4.2) subgroups. Five-year trajectories of functionality (HAQ) was the primary outcome in comparing pRLDA versus pMDA and assessing heterogeneity within the pMDA subgroups through multivariable mixed-effect regression. Results We identified 295 patients with pMDA and 90 patients with pRLDA, the former group comprising of plMDA (n=133, 45%) and phMDA (n=162, 55%). pMDA was associated with worse 5-year functionality trajectory than pRLDA (+0.27 HAQ units, CI 95% +0.22 to +0.33; p<0.0001), while the phMDA subgroup had worse 5-year functionality than plMDA (+0.26 HAQ units, CI 95% 0.18 to 0.36; p<0.0001). Importantly, higher persistent disease activity was associated with more serious adverse events (SAEs) [pRLDA: 0.2±0.48 vs pMDA: 0.5±0.96, p=0.006; plMDA: 0.32 ±0.6 vs phMDA: 0.64 ±1.16, p=0.038). Male gender (p=0.017), lower baseline DAS28 (p<0.001), HAQ improvement >0.22 (p=0.029) and lower average DAS28 during the first trimester since treatment initiation (p=0.001), independently predicted grouping into pRLDA. Conclusions In clinical practice, RA patients with pMDA while on bDMARDs have adverse long-term outcome compared to lower disease activity status, while heterogeneity exists within the pMDA group in terms of 5-year functionality and SAEs. Targeted studies to better characterize pMDA subgroups are needed, in order to assist clinicians in tailoring treatments.

Download Full-text

O06 Baseline predictors of methotrexate-related adverse events in methotrexate-naïve patients with RA

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keab246.005 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Ahmad A Sherbini ◽

James M Gwinnutt ◽

Kimme L Hyrich ◽

Suzanne M M Verstappen ◽

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Health Assessment ◽

Prevalence Rates ◽

Clinical Predictors ◽

Research Support ◽

Related Data ◽

Increased Risk ◽

One Year

Abstract Background/Aims Methotrexate (MTX) is the most common treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) associated with MTX treatment for RA have been studied extensively, but there are limited data on the predictors of these AEs. This study aims to summarise the prevalence rates of MTX AEs, including gastrointestinal (GI), neurological, mucocutaneous, and elevated alanine transaminase (ALT) enzyme, and to identify baseline demographic and clinical predictors of these AEs. Methods The Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) is a UK multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients with RA starting MTX for the first time. Relevant demographic, medication, clinical and disease related data were collected at baseline. AEs were reported at six and twelve months follow-ups. The prevalence rates of AEs were calculated based on the proportions of patients who reported having had an AE within one year of follow-up. The associations between candidate baseline predictors and AEs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results A total of 2,089 patients were included with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation: 13.5) years, 1390 (66.5%) were women. 1,814 and 1,579 patients completed the 6 and 12 months follow-up visits, respectively. The prevalence rates of the AEs within one year of follow-up were: GI = 777 (40.6%), mucocutaneous = 441 (23.1%), neurological = 487 (25.5%), elevated ALT (> upper limit of normal [ULN]) = 286 (15.5%). Younger age and being a woman were associated with increased risk of GI AEs, (age: OR 0.97 per year increase in age, 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; male sex: OR 0.58 vs female, 95% CI 0.46, 0.74) (Table 1). Higher baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score was an independent predictor of GI, mucocutaneous, and neurological AEs. Furthermore, having ALT >1xULN at baseline or history of diabetes was associated with increased risk of subsequent ALT elevation during the study follow-up. Conclusion In patients with RA starting MTX, GI AEs were the most commonly reported AEs during the first year of follow-up. The identified predictors of AEs may facilitate discussions between clinicians and patients prior to commencing MTX, and may lead to increased adherence and consequently improved effectiveness. Disclosure A.A. Sherbini: None. J.M. Gwinnutt: Grants/research support; BMS. K.L. Hyrich: Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie. Grants/research support; Pfizer, UCB, BMS. S.M.M. Verstappen: Consultancies; Celltrion. Member of speakers’ bureau; Pfizer. Grants/research support; BMS.

Download Full-text

AB1335-HPR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS’ PERSPECTIVE ON THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF LOW-DOSE GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS – AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF 444 HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.3277 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 1955.1-1956

Author(s):

T. Santiago ◽

M. Voshaar ◽

M. De Wit ◽

P. Carvalho ◽

M. Boers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Patient Perspective ◽

Online Survey ◽

Low Dose ◽

Low Doses ◽

Research Support ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Patient Organizations

Background:The Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (GLORIA) is an international investigator-initiated pragmatic randomized trial designed to study the effects of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in elderly patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA).The research team is also committed to promote a better understanding of the risks and benefits of these drugs among health professionals and patients. In order to achieve these goals, it is important to assess the current ideas and concerns of patients regarding GCs.Objectives:To evaluate the current patient perspective on the efficacy and risks of GCs in RA patients who are or have been treated with GCs.Methods:Patients with RA completed an online survey (with 5 closed questions regarding efficacy and safety) presented in their native language. RA patients were recruited through a variety of patient organizations representing three continents. Patients were invited to participate through national patient organizations. In the USA, patients were also invited to participate through MediGuard.org. Participants were asked for their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale.Results:1344 RA patients with exposure to GCs, from Brazil, USA, UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany and 24 other countries** participated: 89% female, mean age (SD) 52 (14) years and mean disease duration 13 (11) years. The majority of participants (84%) had ≥10 years of education. The duration of GCs exposure was 1.6 (4.2) years. The majority of participants had read articles or pamphlets on the benefits or harms of GC therapy.Regarding GCs efficacy (table 1), high levels of endorsement were found: about 2/3 of patients considered that GCs as very useful in their case, more than half considered that GCs were effective even at low doses, and agreed that GC improved RA symptoms within days.Regarding safety (table 1), 1/3 of the participants reported having suffered some form of serious adverse events (AEs) due to GCs, and 9% perceived this as “life-threatening. Adverse events had a serious impact on quality of life, according to about 1/3 of the respondents.Conclusion:Patients with RA exposed to GC report a strong conviction that GCs are very useful and effective for the treatment of their RA, even at low doses. This is accompanied by an important prevalence of serious AEs. Understanding the patient perspective can improve shared decision-making between patient and rheumatologist.Funding statement:This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 634886.Disclosure of Interests:Tânia Santiago: None declared, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Pedro Carvalho: None declared, Maarten Boers: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Frank Buttgereit Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Generic Assays, GSK, Hexal, Horizon, Lilly, medac, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi., José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis

Download Full-text

POS0675 THE COMPARATIVE 3-YEAR RETENTION RATE OF TARGETED-SYNTHETIC AND BIOLOGIC DRUGS FOR RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: REAL-LIFE DATA FROM THE ITALIAN GISEA REGISTRY

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.3557 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 582.1-582

Author(s):

E. G. Favalli ◽

F. Iannone ◽

E. Gremese ◽

R. Gorla ◽

R. Foti ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Large Population ◽

Real Life ◽

Mechanisms Of Action ◽

Biologic Drugs ◽

Real Life Setting ◽

Study Population ◽

Targeted Drug

Background:Long-term observational data on the real-life use of JAK inhibitors (JAKis) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their comparison with biological drugs are still very limited. Large population-based registries have been increasingly used to investigate the performance of targeted drugs in a real-life setting.Objectives:The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the 3-year retention rate of JAKis, TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and biologic drugs with other mechanisms of action (OMAs) in the large cohort of RA patients included in the Italian national GISEA registry.Methods:Data of all RA patients treated with targeted synthetic or biologic drugs were prospectively collected in the Italian multicentric GISEA registry. The analysis was limited to patients who started a first- or second-line targeted drug in the period after the first JAKi was marketed in Italy (1st December 2017). The 3-year retention rate was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between different drug classes by a log-rank test. A descriptive analysis of reasons for discontinuation was performed.Results:The study population included 1027 RA patients (79.8% females, mean age [±SD] 56.9 [±13.5] years, mean disease duration 9.8 [±9] years, mean baseline SDAI 17.5 [±11.9], ACPA positive 67.4%, RF positive 62.7%) who received JAKis (baricitinib or tofacitinib, n=297), TNFis (n=365), or OMAs (n=365) as first or second targeted drug. Main baseline characteristics of study population were overall well balanced between treatment groups. Retention rate was numerically but not statistically higher (p=0.18) in patients treated with JAKis compared with TNFis or OMAs (80.6, 78.9 and 76.4% at 1 year and 73, 56.8 and 63.8% at 3 years, respectively) (Figure 1). Drug survival was significantly higher in patients receiving concomitant methotrexate (MTX) compared with monotherapy only in TNFis (66.8 vs 47.1%, p=0.04) but not in JAKis (76.1 vs 70.1%, p=0.54) and OMAs (66.1 vs 61.9%, p=0.41) group. Therapy was discontinued in a total of 211 patients because of ineffectiveness (n=107), adverse events (n=88), or compliance/other reasons (n=16). The most frequent reason for treatment withdrawal was ineffectiveness in both JAKis (n=30 out of 56) and TNFis (n=45 out of 74) groups, whereas OMAs were discontinued more frequently because of adverse events (n=41 out of 81).Conclusion:Our data confirmed in a real-life setting a favorable 3-year retention rate of all available targeted mechanisms of action for RA therapy. As expected, concomitant MTX significantly impacted persistence on therapy of TNFis only. Discontinuations of JAKis for adverse events were infrequent overall, confirming the safety profile observed in randomized clinical trials.Figure 1.Three-year retention rate by treatment groupDisclosure of Interests:None declared

Download Full-text

OP0098 POLYPHARMACY IS ASSOCIATED WITH A POORER TREATMENT RESPONSE AND INCREASED RISK OF ADVERSE EVENTS IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.3213 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 54.1-54

Author(s):

S. Benamar ◽

C. Lukas ◽

C. Daien ◽

C. Gaujoux-Viala ◽

L. Gossec ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Treatment Response ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Group Versus ◽

Biological Database ◽

Lower Probability ◽

Research Support ◽

Early Ra ◽

Increased Risk

Background:Polypharmacy is steadily increasing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They may interfere with treatment response and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Medications taken by a patient may reflect active comorbidities, whereas comorbidity indices usually used include past or current diseases.Objectives:To evaluate whether polypharmarcy is associated with treatment response and adverse events in an early RA cohort and to establish whether polypharmacy could represent a substitute of comorbidities.Methods:We used data from the French cohort ESPOIR, including 813 patients with early onset arthritis. Patients included the current study had to start their first disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) within 24 months of inclusion in the cohort. Disease activity data were collected at one, five and ten years from the initiation of the first DMARD. For each patient, treatments were collected at baseline and at five years. Medications count included all specialties other than background RA therapy, analgesics/NSAIDs and topicals. Polypharmacy was defined as a categorical variable based on the median and tertiles of distribution in the cohort. Treatment response was assessed by achieving DAS28 ESR remission (REM) at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the initiation of the first DMARD. The occurrence of severe adverse events (SAE) was measured by the occurrence of severe infection, hospitalization, or death during the 10-year follow-up. The association between patient’s characteristics and achievement of REM and occurrence of SAE were tested in univariate analysis. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate associations between polypharmacy and REM at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years (we used baseline polypharmacy for the 1-year analysis and five years polypharmacy for the 5- and 10-years analyses). Multivariate adjustment was made for age, sex, BMI, duration of disease, initial DAS28 ESR, initial HAQ, smoking status, rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI).Results:The proportion of patients who achieved REM one year after the initiation of the first DMARD was 32.1% in the polypharmacy according to the median group (patients taken ≥2 medication) versus 67.9% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.07). At 5 years after the first DMARD, the proportion of patients with REM was 45.0% in the polypharmacy group versus 56.3% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.03). At 10 years the proportion of patients with REM was 32.5% in the polypharmacy group versus 67.5% (p=0.06). Patients who take greater or equal to 2 medications had a 40% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.60 [0.38-0.94] p = 0.03) at 5 years from the first DMARD (if RDCI index was not included in the model). At 10 years, patients receiving multiple medications had a 43% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.57 [0.34-0.94] p = 0.02). SAE incidence was 61 per 1000 patient-years. For patients who developed SAE all causes 71.4% where in the polypharmacy group versus 57.8% were in the non-polypharmacy group (p = 0.03; univariate analysis). These results are no longer significant after adjustment for comorbidities indices.Conclusion:In this early RA cohort, polypharmacy is associated with a poorer treatment response and increased risk of adverse events. Polypharmacy may represent a good substitute of comorbidities for epidemiological studies.Acknowledgements:We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) who did expert monitoring and data management and all theinvestigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).The work reported on in the manuscript did not benefit from any financial support. The ESPOIR cohort is sponsored by the French Society for Rheumatology. An unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) was allocated for the first 5 years. Two additional grants from INSERM were obtained to support part of the biological database. Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly and more recently Fresenius and Biogen also supported the ESPOIR cohort.Disclosure of Interests:Soraya Benamar: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Claire Daien Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Anne-Christine Rat Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai., Jacques Morel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer

Download Full-text