scholarly journals Prediction of remission and low disease activity in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with golimumab

Rheumatology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 1466-1476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Vastesaeger ◽  
Abraham Garcia Kutzbach ◽  
Howard Amital ◽  
Karel Pavelka ◽  
María Alicia Lazaro ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201467
Author(s):  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Merete Lund Hetland ◽  
Thomas Frisell ◽  
Daniela Di Giuseppe ◽  
Karin Hellgren ◽  
...  

Objective In Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) in patients whose first ever bDMARD was a non-tumor-necrosis-factor-inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of the second bDMARD (non-TNFi [rituximab, abatacept or tocilizumab, separately] and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. Methods We identified RA patients from the five Nordic biologics registers started treatment with a non-TNFi as first ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed survival-on-drug (at 6 and 12 months), and primary response (at 6 months). Results We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67 and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFI bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, around 70% and 50%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months less than one third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to DAS28. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFI, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). Conclusion The survival-on-drug and primary response of a second bDMARD in RA patients switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
E Simpson ◽  
Matt Stevenson ◽  
Emma Hock ◽  
Ruth Wong ◽  
R Wakefield ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION:Ultrasound (US) detects synovitis more accurately than clinical examination (CE) in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This review aimed to investigate the use of US, compared to CE alone, in treatment strategies for RA, and to estimate its potential to be cost-effective in making treatment decisions.METHODS:A systematic review was conducted of studies: investigating RA treatment response or strategies that compared US with CE-assessed synovitis; and of tapering RA treatment (1). A model was constructed to investigate the potential cost-effectiveness of US in (i) selecting patients suitable for treatment tapering; and (ii) avoiding treatment escalation (2).RESULTS:Seven prospective cohort studies suggested US-detected synovitis was significantly associated with a treatment response or tapering failure, whereas in most cases clinical examination alone was not. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified suggested that US added to the Disease Activity Index (DAS)-based treatment strategies but did not significantly improve primary outcomes, but was associated with improved rate of DAS remission. The evidence showed that some patients (proportions varied widely) who had achieved low disease activity could have treatment tapered, with no, or little, short-term harm to the patient.The model estimated that an average reduction of 2.5 percent in the costs of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARDs) was sufficient to cover the costs of performing US every three months. This value increased to 4 percent and 13 percent for the costs of conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (cDMARDs) depending on the assumed regimen.CONCLUSIONS:Use of US to monitor synovitis could potentially be a cost-effective approach, given that low proportions of patients for whom clinicians consider amending treatment, would need to taper treatment, or remain on therapy without escalation. US could provide clinicians with more confidence in reducing the drug burden. However, there is considerable uncertainty in this conclusion due to lack of robust data relating to key parameters.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1456.1-1457
Author(s):  
D. Iacono ◽  
I. Pantano ◽  
D. Birra ◽  
G. Scalise ◽  
M. A. Coscia ◽  
...  

Background:EULAR recommendations focus the importance of Methotrexate (MTX) therapy as a key element in the treatment of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), alone as first line therapy and in combination with biological Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drug (bDMARDs). Abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) in Europe is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in combination with MTX. Several patients, however, discontinue MTX for intolerance, side effects or contraindications, and real-life data demonstrate how, even in patients receiving therapy with MTX, compliance could be suboptimal. The only data on the use of abatacept in monotherapy come from the ORA-Registry, where a worse performance is observed in monotherapy patients.Objectives:To evaluate a multicenter cohort of RA patients treated with Abatacept in patients underwent combined MTX therapy vs monotherapy.Methods:We retrospectively evaluated RA patients, referring to 2 Italian rheumatology centers, treated with Abatacept monotherapy or in combination with MTX. We compared both persistence in therapy and the rate of remission/low disease activity according to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) between the 2 groups.Results:We enrolled 147 patients, out of them 66 patients were on monotherapy with Abatacept due to intolerance or controindications and 81 in therapy with Abatacept plus MTX. The two cohorts appeared homogeneous in age, gender, disease duration and baseline activity indexes, with the only difference being higher baseline Physician Global assessment (PhGA) values in monotherapy patients. During the follow-up (median duration 24±14 months), the retention rate of Abatacept treatment was 71.2% in MTX patients (median duration 27–15.6 months) and 62.1% in monotherapy patients (median duration 25.2–17.5; p=ns). No differences between the two groups in terms of retention rate, low-disease activity and CDAI remission (log rank p=ns), Breslow p=ns) were detected.Conclusion:In patients with RA with intolerance or contraindication to MTX use, Abatacept monotherapy could be an efficient and safe option even in the long term follow-up.References:[1]Abatacept monotherapy compared with abatacept plus disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients: data from the ORA registry.Truchetet ME et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 Mar 30;18:72.Disclosure of Interests:DANIELA IACONO Speakers bureau: PFIZER, BRISTOL MAYERS SQUIBB, SANOFI, Ilenia Pantano: None declared, domenico birra: None declared, GIUSEPPE SCALISE: None declared, Melania Alessia Coscia: None declared, VALENTINA MESSINITI: None declared, Gabriella Loi: None declared, Anna Merchionda: None declared, Paolo Moscato: None declared, francesco ciccia Grant/research support from: pfizer, novartis, roche, Consultant of: pfizer, novartis, lilly, abbvie, Speakers bureau: pfizer, novartis, lilly, abbvie


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1388.2-1388
Author(s):  
R. Hassan ◽  
M. Cheikh ◽  
H. Almoallim ◽  
H. Faruqui ◽  
R. Alquraa ◽  
...  

Background:National Registries are essential to direct current practice and design appropriate management strategies1. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries in the middle east and north Africa remain scarcely represented2.Objectives:Our objective is to describe the Saudi RA population and to compare the findings to internationally reported data.Methods:This is a cross sectional, analytical study that was conducted at Doctor Soliman Fakeeh Hospital (DSFH). The study ran from December of 2014 and concluded in December of 2018 using a pool of 433 patients. Inclusion criteria included adults older than 18 years of age who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria for diagnosis of RA3. Data were collected from patients and entered in a specially designed program for this registry. They included main demographic details,, lag times to final disease diagnosis. Disease Activity Score-28-C Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) was calculated on presentation and on subsequent visits with intervals ranging from three to six months between them. Multiple regression model was used to assess the predictors of disease activity. We charted the lines of medications given, including conventional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), following treat to target strategies4.Results:Out of 430 patients, 76.68% were female, while only 23.32% were male and the mean age was found to be 49.26 years with SD±11.At initial presentation, 45.5% had demonstrated active disease (moderate or high disease activity) based on DAS-28-CRP scores while 54.5% were in remission or low disease activity. Out of the total number of clinic visitors, 330 had regular follow ups for more than 1 year while 103 patients were either irregularly visiting the rheumatology clinic or had lost follow up. The remission rates after 1 year had increased to 79.7% (263 patients), while 9.7% (32 patients) had low disease activity and no patients had sustained high disease activity at the end of follow up. It was also found that the female gender, higher Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and a longer lag1/lag2 period were associated with higher disease activity in our population. Biologic medications had been used by 129 patients (29.7%) while conventional DMARDs were given to 304 patients (70.3%).Conclusion:We described a population of RA patients in a single center in SA. We detected higher remission rates at one year of follow up. This could be attributed to many factors, including good referral systems and treat to target strategies with easier access to biologic medications.References:[1]Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr, Akl EA, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, Vaysbrot E, McNaughton C, Osani M, Shmerling RH, Curtis JR, Furst DE, Parks D, Kavanaugh A, O’Dell J, King C, Leong A, Matteson EL, Schousboe JT, Drevlow B, Ginsberg S, Grober J, St Clair EW, Tindall E, Miller AS, McAlindon T. 2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Arthritis Rheumatol.2016 Jan;68(1):1-26.[2]Smolen, Josef S., et al. “EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update.”Annals of the rheumatic diseases73.3 (2014): 492-509.[3]Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, Anuntiyo J, Finney C, Curtis JR, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis Rheum2008;59: 762–84.[4]Hussain W, Noorwali A, Janoudi N. From symptoms to diagnosis: an observational study of the journey of rheumatoid arthritis patients in Saudi Arabia.Oman Med J.2016;31(1):29.Disclosure of Interests:Rola Hassan Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Mohamed Cheikh Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Hani Almoallim Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Hanan Faruqui Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Reem AlQuraa Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Ayman Eissa Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Aous Alhazmi Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Nahid Janoudi Grant/research support from: Pfizer pharmaceuticals


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document