scholarly journals AB0420 The same treatment response of mono- and combined-mtx treatment in dmards-naÏve turkish patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and the importance of pulmonary toxicity

Author(s):  
FF Ayhan ◽  
A Gümüştepe ◽  
B Nacır ◽  
A Karagöz
2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 54.1-54
Author(s):  
S. Benamar ◽  
C. Lukas ◽  
C. Daien ◽  
C. Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
...  

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


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraint A Brown ◽  
Louise Kearney ◽  
Elizabeth Warner ◽  
Spencer Ellis

Abstract Background/Aims  Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) require blood monitoring as recommended by the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines. Deranged liver function tests are a common abnormality, and when a significant transaminitis occurs further investigations are required. We wish to present three cases where a transaminitis was caused by acute hepatitis E. Hepatitis E rarely causes illness in the general population. Transmission can occur via sewage-contaminated food and water, undercooked or raw pig and game meat, or processed pork and shellfish. Blood transfusion and solid organ transplantation is very rare. There is an estimated 60,000 cases of Hepatitis E per year in England. Those who are immunosuppressed are more likely to develop chronic liver disease. Methods  . Results  Case 1 is 55 year old male with a seronegative inflammatory arthritis treated with methotrexate and sulfasalazine whose ALT rose to 2043 U/l. After a negative liver screen including autoantibodies, Hepatitis E IgM was detected. Case 2 is a 71 year old male with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis prescribed Methotrexate and Sulfasalazine who developed a transaminitis following a holiday to Spain. Hepatitis E serology was positive. Case 3 is a 65 year old male with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis on Abatacept and Methotrexate who also developed deranged liver function tests following a trip to Spain. Alcohol excess was initially suspected due to the consumption of > 20 units per week. However, on cessation of all medications the ALT continued to rise to 1087 U/l. He was found to be Hepatitis E IgM positive with viral PCR also detected. In all three cases contaminated food was likely to be the source of infection and DMARDs were successfully restarted in all patients following normalisation of liver function tests. Conclusion  This case series highlights an important differential for transaminitis with very little published literature. Hepatitis E is under reported and not routinely requested in practice as part of a liver screen. Failure to check Hepatitis E serology may lead to DMARDs being discontinued inappropriately. All patients should be educated about the risks of Hepatitis E from food products.We recommend that DMARDs are suspended once Hepatitis E infection has been diagnosed in order to allow the immune system combat the infection. Treatment is usually self limiting, though in severe cases Ribavirin has been used with good effect. DMARDs should be restarted once liver markers normalise, and two serum Hepatitis E RNA results and two stool samples are negative. The presence of persistent Hepatitis E RNA (viral shedding) is highly suspicious for chronic infection, which would warrant hepatology input. Disclosure  G.A. Brown: None. L. Kearney: None. E. Warner: None. S. Ellis: None.


Reumatismo ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bellan ◽  
D. Soddu ◽  
E. Zecca ◽  
A. Croce ◽  
R. Bonometti ◽  
...  

Red cell distribution width (RDW) is an unconventional biomarker of inflammation. We aimed to explore its role as a predictor of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Eighty-two RA patients (55 females), median age [interquartile range] 63 years [52-69], were selected by scanning the medical records of a rheumatology clinic, to analyze the associations between baseline RDW, disease activity scores and inflammatory markers, as well as the relationship between RDW changes following methotrexate (MTX) and treatment response. The lower the median baseline RDW, the greater were the chances of a positive EULAR response at three months, 13.5% [13.0-14.4] being among those with good response, vs 14.0% [13.2-14.7] and 14.2% [13.5- 16.0] (p=0.009) among those with moderate and poor response, respectively. MTX treatment was followed by a significant RDW increase (p<0.0001). The increase of RDW was greater among patients with good EULAR response, becoming progressively smaller in cases with moderate and poor response (1.0% [0.4-1.4] vs. 0.7 [0.1-2.0] vs. 0.3 [-0.1-0.8]; p=0.03). RDW is a strong predictor of early response to MTX in RA. RDW significantly increases after MTX initiation in parallel to treatment response, suggesting a role as a marker of MTX effectiveness.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
John M Davis ◽  
Keith L Knutson ◽  
Michael A Strausbauch ◽  
Abigail B Green ◽  
Cynthia S Crowson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document