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

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

scholarly journals PARE0004 PATIENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE EFFICACY AND RISKS OF GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS – AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF 1344 PATIENTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1288.2-1288
Author(s):  
T. Santiago ◽  
M. Voshaar ◽  
M. De Wit ◽  
P. Carvalho ◽  
F. Buttgereit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Low Doses ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
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.References: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, Frank Buttgereit Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Generic Assays, GSK, Hexal, Horizon, Lilly, medac, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi., Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Maarten Boers: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Lilly, Novartis

Patients’ and rheumatologists’ perspectives on the efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis—an international survey within the GLORIA study

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Santiago ◽  
M Voshaar ◽  
M de Wit ◽  
P D Carvalho ◽  
F Buttgereit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
The Real ◽  
Patient Organizations ◽  
Published Evidence

Abstract Objective To evaluate the current perspectives of patients and health professionals regarding the efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA. Methods Two online surveys were disseminated to patients and health professionals, in their native language, through national patient organizations and national rheumatology medical societies, respectively. SurveyMonkey®, MediGuard.org and the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in RA Study (GLORIA) website were used to offer and deliver these surveys. Results A total of 1221 RA patients with exposure to GCs, and 414 rheumatologists completed the surveys. Patients and rheumatologists reported high levels of agreement regarding the efficacy of low-dose GCs: at least 70% considered that they are very rapid and effective in the control of signs and symptoms of RA. However, half of the patients also reported having suffered serious adverse events with GCs, and 83% described concerns about safety. The majority of rheumatologists estimated that endocrine, ophthalmologic and cutaneous adverse events affect >4% of all patients treated with low-dose GCs for 2 years, based on a heat map. Conclusions RA patients with self-reported exposure to GCs express high levels of satisfaction with low-dose GCs efficacy, as do rheumatologists. However, both expressed excessive concerns regarding the safety of GCs (greatly exceeding the published evidence data), which may compromise the optimal use of this medication. This study indicates that there is an unmet need for appropriately designed prospective trials that shed light on the real risk associated with low-dose GCs, as well as a need for renovated educational programs on the real benefits and harms of low-dose GCs, for both patients and physicians.

Low dose long-term corticosteroid therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis of serious adverse events

1994 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth G. Saag ◽  
Rochelle Koehnke ◽  
Jacques R. Caldwell ◽  
Richard Brasington ◽  
Leon F. Burmeister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Corticosteroid Therapy ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

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

Rheumatology ◽  
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.

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

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

scholarly journals POS0647 EFFICACY, SAFETY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF IGURATIMOD-BASED THERAPY IN THE TREATMENT OF UA, ERA AND RA PATIENTS FOR 24 WEEKS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 561.2-562
Author(s):  
X. Liu ◽  
Z. Sun ◽  
W. Guo ◽  
F. Wang ◽  
L. Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Early Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Background:Experts emphasize early diagnosis and treatment in RA, but the widely used diagnostic criterias fail to meet the accurate judgment of early rheumatoid arthritis. In 2012, Professor Zhanguo Li took the lead in establishing ERA “Chinese standard”, and its sensitivity and accuracy have been recognized by peers. However, the optimal first-line treatment of patients (pts) with undifferentiated arthritis (UA), early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are yet to be established.Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Iguratimod-based (IGU-based) Strategy in the above three types of pts, and to explore the characteristics of the effects of IGU monotherapy and combined treatment.Methods:This prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01548001) was conducted in China. In this phase 4 study pts with RA (ACR 1987 criteria[1]), ERA (not match ACR 1987 criteria[1] but match ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria[2] or 2014 ERA criteria[3]), UA (not match classification criteria for ERA and RA but imaging suggests synovitis) were recruited. We applied different treatments according to the patient’s disease activity at baseline, including IGU monotherapy and combination therapies with methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisone. Specifically, pts with LDA and fewer poor prognostic factors were entered the IGU monotherapy group (25 mg bid), and pts with high disease activity were assigned to combination groups. A Chi-square test was applied for comparison. The primary outcomes were the proportion of pts in remission (REM)or low disease activity (LDA) that is DAS28-ESR<2.6 or 3.2 at 24 weeks, as well as the proportion of pts, achieved ACR20, Boolean remission, and good or moderate EULAR response (G+M).Results:A total of 313 pts (26 pts with UA, 59 pts with ERA, and 228 pts with RA) were included in this study. Of these, 227/313 (72.5%) pts completed the 24-week follow-up. The results showed that 115/227 (50.7%), 174/227 (76.7%), 77/227 (33.9%), 179/227 (78.9%) pts achieved DAS28-ESR defined REM and LDA, ACR20, Boolean remission, G+M response, respectively. All parameters continued to decrease in all pts after treatment (Fig 1).Compared with baseline, the three highest decline indexes of disease activity at week 24 were SW28, CDAI, and T28, with an average decline rate of 73.8%, 61.4%, 58.7%, respectively. Results were similar in three cohorts.We performed a stratified analysis of which IGU treatment should be used in different cohorts. The study found that the proportion of pts with UA and ERA who used IGU monotherapy were significantly higher than those in the RA cohort. While the proportion of triple and quadruple combined use of IGU in RA pts was significantly higher than that of ERA and UA at baseline and whole-course (Fig 2).A total of 81/313 (25.8%) pts in this study had adverse events (AE) with no serious adverse events. The main adverse events were infection(25/313, 7.99%), gastrointestinal disorders(13/313, 4.15%), liver dysfunction(12/313, 3.83%) which were lower than 259/2666 (9.71%) in the previous Japanese phase IV study[4].The most common reasons of lost follow-up were: 1) discontinued after remission 25/86 (29.1%); 2) lost 22/86 (25.6%); 3) drug ineffective 19/86 (22.1%).Conclusion:Both IGU-based monotherapy and combined therapies are tolerant and effective for treating UA, ERA, and RA, while the decline in joint symptoms was most significant. Overall, IGU combination treatments were most used in RA pts, while monotherapy was predominant in ERA and UA pts.References:[1]Levin RW, et al. Scand J Rheumatol 1996, 25(5):277-281.[2]Kay J, et al. Rheumatology 2012, 51(Suppl 6):vi5-9.[3]Zhao J, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014, 32(5):667-673.[4]Mimori T, et al. Mod Rheumatol 2019, 29(2):314-323.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals AB0249 SAFETY OF BARICITINIB IN JAPANESE PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA): THE 2020 INTERIM REPORT FROM ALL-CASE POST MARKETING SURVEILLANCE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1150.1-1150
Author(s):  
T. Fujii ◽  
T. Atsumi ◽  
N. Okamoto ◽  
N. Takahashi ◽  
N. Tamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Aspiration Pneumonia ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Chugai Pharmaceutical ◽  
Post Marketing Surveillance ◽  
Otsuka Pharmaceutical ◽  
Post Marketing

Background:An all-case post marketing surveillance (PMS) of baricitinib (Bari), that started in Sep 2017, collects safety and effectiveness for the first 24 wks of treatment and continues to collect serious adverse events (SAEs) for 3 yrs.Objectives:To evaluate Bari safety in RA patients (pt) in clinical practice.Methods:We report pt baseline demographics and adverse events (AEs) up to 24 wks for pts whose case report files for 24-wk data were completed as of Jun 2020.Results:Data from 3445 pts were analyzed (females=80%, mean age=64yr, mean RA duration 12yr). Bari dose regimen was as follows: 4mg, 60%, 2mg, 27%, 4mg→2mg, 5%, 2mg→4mg, 5%, and others, 2%. Concomitant use of MTX and glucocorticoid was 65% and 48%, respectively. 74% continued treatment for 24 wks. AE and SAE were recognized in 887 (26%) and 122 pts (4%), respectively. 6 pts died of pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, bacterial pneumonia, cerebral infarction/ILD/aspiration pneumonia, adenocarcinoma, and colorectal cancer. Major AEs were as follows: herpes zoster=3%, liver dysfunction=3%, serious infection=1%, anemia=1%, hyperlipidemia=1%, malignancy=0.3%, interstitial pneumonia=0.2%, MACE=0.1%, and VTE=0.1%.Conclusion:Data do not show new safety concerns and encourage guideline-compliant use of Bari.Disclosure of Interests:Takao Fujii Speakers bureau: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Consultant of: Asahikasei Pharma Corp, Grant/research support from: Asahikasei Pharma Corp; AbbVie Japan GK; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eisai Co. Ltd; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tatsuya Atsumi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Astellas Pharma Inc.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Ltd; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., UCB Japan Co. Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK; AstraZeneca plc.; Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd.; Medical & Biological Laboratories Co. Ltd.; Novartis Pharma K.K.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc., Alexion Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.Pfizer Japan Inc.; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nami Okamoto Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Asahikasei Pharma Co.; AYUMI Pharmaceutical Co.Eisai Co. Ltd; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.Sanofi K.K.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Teijin Pharma Ltd.; Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nobunori Takahashi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; UCB Japan Co. Ltd.; Astellas Pharma Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd., Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd., Naoto Tamura Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Bristol Myers Squibb Co. Ltd.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; Eisai Co. Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Glaxo Smith Kline K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co., Atsuo Nakajima: None declared, Ayako Nakajima Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK; Actelion Pharmaceuticals Japan Ltd., Asahi Kasei Pharma Co., Astellas Pharma Inc., Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd.,Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Glaxo Smith Kline K.K., Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co. Inc., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Teijin Pharma Ltd., Grant/research support from: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Hiroaki Matsuno Speakers bureau: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Consultant of: Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K, Naoto Tsujimoto Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Atsushi Nishikawa Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Taeko Ishii Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Ayumi Pharmaceutical Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. Eisai Co., Ltd. Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Co.; Novartis Pharma Co.; Pfizer Japan Inc.; Sanofi K.K.; UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Consultant of: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma, Inc.; Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.; Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Eisai Co., Ltd.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Pfizer Japan Inc., Grant/research support from: AbbVie Japan GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., DNA Chip Research Inc.; Eisai Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K.; Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: AbbVie Japan GK, Astellas Pharma Inc., Asahi Kasei Pharma Co., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co.; Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd.; Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Pfizer Japan Inc., Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc.; Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd.; Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Medical &Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Michiaki Takagi Speakers bureau: Yes, but sponsored lectures without COI in the academic meetings, only.

scholarly journals Pilot study in patients with congenital low-flow vascular malformation treated with low dose sirolimus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veroniek Harbers ◽  
Gerard Rongen ◽  
van der Carine Vleuten ◽  
Bas Verhoeven ◽  
de Peter Laat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Vascular Malformation ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Liver Toxicity ◽  
Vascular Malformations ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Bone Marrow Toxicity ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Grade Iii

Abstract Background Patients with congenital low-flow vascular malformations (capillary (CM), lymphatic (LM), venous (VM) or combined) may have an impaired quality of life (QoL), due to their symptoms, which include pain, swelling, bleeding, thrombosis, and functional impairment. Unfortunately, current treatment methods are challenging and not always successful. Previous studies have shown that the mTOR-inhibitor sirolimus is an effective treatment for these patients. Target levels of 10–15 ng/ml were well tolerated; however, grade three adverse events were observed (ranged 20–40%). Methods A pilot study was performed using a Challenge–Dechallenge–Rechallenge (CDR) design to determine the pharmacodynamics of low target levels of sirolimus (target levels 4–10 ng/ml) in respect of efficacy and adverse events in patients with disabling low-flow vascular malformations without treatment alternatives. The patients received sirolimus over a three-to-six-month period (Challenge), followed by the withdrawal of sirolimus (Dechallenge). If the complaints returned, sirolimus was reintroduced during a twelve month period (Rechallenge). Efficacy was determined on pain (end point of the pilot study) and other symptoms related to the vascular malformation; and adverse events were determined in all phases of the study. Results An improvement in symptoms was seen in 92% (n = 11/12) of patients during the Challenge phase. In the Rechallenge phase, a positive response rate of 78% was found (n = 7/9). These response rates are comparable to those found in the literature despite low target levels of sirolimus. However, less serious adverse events were observed with low dose sirolimus, especially bone marrow toxicity and grade III liver toxicity. Conclusions This pilot using low dose sirolimus showed high efficacy in patients with therapy resistant and disabling low-flow malformation, with a lower incidence of serious adverse events (especially bone marrow toxicity and grade III liver toxicity). This is extremely relevant to patients with low-flow vascular malformation, as current clinical protocols tend to advise lifelong treatment. Trial registration The pilot study was part of a phase III study. Trial registration: EudraCT number: 2016-002157-38 and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03987152, registered 06/14/2019 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03987152?term=sirolimus&cond=Vascular+Malformations&cntry=NL&draw=2&rank=1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document