scholarly journals AB0302 USE OF TNF-INHIBITORS BEFORE, DURING AND THE FIRST YEAR AFTER PREGNANCY AMONG WOMEN WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1450.2-1450
Author(s):  
H. Bjørngaard ◽  
H. Koksvik ◽  
B. Jakobsen ◽  
M. Wallenius

Background:Treat to target is a goal, also in pregnant women with Rheumatoid arthritis (1). There is increasing evidence on safe use with TNF inhibitors during pregnancy. Adjusted use of TNF inhibitors preconception and throughout pregnancy may stabilize disease activity and prevent flares (2). Low disease activity is also beneficial for the fetus.Objectives:To study the use of TNF-inhibitors among women with Rheumatic arthritis during and after pregnancy.Methods:RevNatus is a Norwegian, nationwide quality register that monitors treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases before, during and after pregnancy. Data from RevNatus in the period October 2017 to October 2019 was used to map the use of all types of TNF inhibitors among 208 women with rheumatoid arthritis, diagnosed by the ACR/EULAR criteria. The use of medication was reported at the time of visit in outpatient clinic. The frequency of use of TNF inhibitors registered at seven timepoints from pre-pregnancy to twelve months after delivery.Results:The use of medication was reported at each visit for all the women with rheumatoid arthritis. Most of the women were not using TNF inhibitors before and beyond conception. Most of the women continuing TNF inhibitors beyond conception used certolizumab or etanercept. Adalimumab and infliximab were used in pregnancy (tabell 1).Tabell 1.certoliz-umabetane-rceptadalim-umabgolim-umabinflixi-mabNo TNF-inhibitorBefore pregnancyn=10521% (22)9% (10)3% (3)1% (1)66% (69)1.trimestern=8119% (15)10% (8)71% (58)2.trimestern=8810% (9)10% (9)80% (70)3.trimestern=9111% (10)5% (5)83% (76)6 weeks post partum n=9622% (21)13% (13)1% (1)1% (1)63% (60)6 months post partum n=8824% (21)18% (16)4% (4)1% (1)53% (46)12 months post partum n=8421% (18)17% (15)7% (6)2% (2)53% (43)Conclusion:Most of the women with rheumatic arthritis were not treated with TNF inhibitors before or in pregnancy. Women with rheumatic arthritis that continuing treatment with TNF inhibitors through pregnancy were using certilozumab and etanercept.References:[1]Gotestam Skorpen C, Hoeltzenbein M, Tincani A, Fischer-Betz R, Elefant E, Chambers C, et al. The EULAR points to consider for use of antirheumatic drugs before pregnancy, and during pregnancy and lactation. 2016;75(5):795-810.[2]van den Brandt S, Zbinden A, Baeten D, Villiger PM, Ostensen M, Forger F. Risk factors for flare and treatment of disease flares during pregnancy in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):64.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 727.1-727
Author(s):  
H. Bjørngaard ◽  
H. Koksvik ◽  
B. Jakobsen ◽  
M. Wallenius

Background:Treat to target is a goal in pregnant women with spondyloarthristis. There is increasing evidence on safe use with TNF inhibitors during pregnancy (1). Adjusted use of TNF inhibitors preconception and throughout pregnancy may stabilize disease activity and prevent flares (2). Low disease activity is also beneficial for the fetus.Objectives:To study the use of TNF-inhibitors among women with spondyloarthritis in Norway before, during and after pregnancy.Methods:RevNatus is a Norwegian, nationwide quality register that monitors treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases before, during and after pregnancy. Data from RevNatus in the period October 2017 to October 2019 were used to map the use of all types of TNF inhibitors among 208 women with spondyloarthitis, fulfilling the ASAS criteria.The use of medication was reported at the time of visit in outpatient clinic. The frequency of use of TNF inhibitors is registered at seven timepoints from pre-pregnancy to twelve months after delivery.Results:The use of TNF-inhibitors was reported at each visit for all the women with spondyloarthritis. Most women are not using TNF inhibitors before and beyond conception. Most of the women continuing TNF inhibitors beyond conception, used certolizumab, etanercept, or adalimumab. Infliximab or golimumab were not used in pregnancy (tabell 2).Table 2:SPACertoli-zumabEtaner-ceptAdali-mumabGolim-umabInflik-simabNo TNF -inhibitorBefore Pregnancyn=13910% (14)8% (11)6% (9)6% (9)69% (96)1.trimestern=1027% (7)7% (7)2 % (2)84% (86)2.trimestern=1047% (7)6% (6)1% (1)87% (90)3. trimestern=953% (3)2% (2)1% (1)94% (89)6 weeks post partumn=10015% (15)10% (10)8% (8)3% (3)64% (64)6 months post partumn=8219% (16)12% (10)7% (6)2% (2)2% (2)55% (46)12 months post partumn=7422% (16)15% (11)7% (5)4% (3)5% (4)47% (35)Conclusion:A majority of the women with spondyloarthritis were not treated with TNF inhibitors before or during pregnancy. Only a few of the women with spondylosthritis continued treatment with TNF inhibitors during pregnancy.References:[1]Gotestam Skorpen C, Hoeltzenbein M, Tincani A, Fischer-Betz R, Elefant E, Chambers C, et al. The EULAR points to consider for use of antirheumatic drugs before pregnancy, and during pregnancy and lactation. 2016;75(5):795-810.[2]van den Brandt S, Zbinden A, Baeten D, Villiger PM, Ostensen M, Forger F. Risk factors for flare and treatment of disease flares during pregnancy in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):64.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1086.2-1087
Author(s):  
T. Okano ◽  
T. Koike ◽  
K. Inui ◽  
K. Mamoto ◽  
Y. Yamada ◽  
...  

Background:In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), biologics treatment is one of the effective treatment options. Usually, there is no difference in therapeutic effect regardless of which biologics is used, but the effect for joint synovitis is unknown. Recently, ultrasound (US) has played a role of sensitive imaging modality in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with RA.Objectives:The aim of this study was to compare the improvement of US findings between TNF inhibitors and non-TNF inhibitors at first biologics in patients with RA.Methods:Fifty-four RA patients who started the first biologics from September 2016 to December 2018 were included in this longitudinal study (SPEEDY study, UMIN000028260). All the patients were performed clinical examination, blood test and US examination at baseline, 4, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks. A US examination was performed at the bilateral first to fifth metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, first interphalangeal (IP) and second to fifth proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints, wrist joints (three part of radial, medial and ulnar) and first to fifth metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints, by using HI VISION Ascendus (Hitachi Medical Corporation, Japan) with a multifrequency linear transducer (18-6 MHz). The gray scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) findings were assessed by the semi-quantitative method (0-3). GS score and PD score (both 0-108 points) were defined as the sum of each score. The change of disease activity and US findings were compared between TNF group and non-TNF group.Results:Among 54 cases, 32 patients were used TNF inhibitor and 22 were non-TNF inhibitor. Age and duration of RA were significantly higher in the non-TNF group, and MTX dose was significantly lower in the non-TNF group. The baseline inflammatory markers tended to be higher in the non-TNF group and the disease activity was also higher in the non-TNF group. However, the US findings showed no significant difference in both GS and PD between two groups at baseline. US improvement ratio was no difference between TNF group and non-TNF group at 4, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks in both GS and PD score. Regardless of the type of biologics, patients with long-term disease duration tended to have poor improvement in US synovial fingings.Table 1.Baseline patient and disease characteristicsTNF (n=32)non-TNF (n=22)P valueFemale patients, n (%)21 (65.6)16 (72.7)0.767Age (years)63.5±15.471.0±9.00.030Disease duration (years)6.5±8.213.0±11.70.032CRP (mg/dl)1.8±2.53.0±3.20.170DAS28-ESR5.0±1.45.8±1.20.022GS score26.1±18.831.8±21.10.313PD score17.6±11.423.1±14.60.150Figure 1.GS and PD improvement ratio at 4, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeksConclusion:There was no difference in the US findings improvement between patients with TNF inhibitor and non-TNF inhibitor at first biologics in patients with RA.References:[1]Grassi W, Okano T, Di Geso L, Filippucci E. Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis: options, uses and optimization. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11:1131-46.[2]Nishino A, Kawashiri SY, Koga T, et al. Ultrasonographic Efficacy of Biologic andTargeted Synthetic Disease-ModifyingAntirheumatic Drug Therapy in RheumatoidArthritis From a Multicenter RheumatoidArthritis Ultrasound Prospective Cohort in Japan. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70:1719-26.Acknowledgements:We wish to thank Atsuko Kamiyama, Tomoko Nakatsuka for clinical assistant, Setsuko Takeda, Emi Yamashita, Yuko Yoshida, Rika Morinaka, Hatsue Ueda and Tomomi Iwahashi for their special efforts as a sonographer and collecting data.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 478.2-479
Author(s):  
L. Zhang ◽  
C. van der Tog ◽  
A. den Broeder ◽  
T. Mellors ◽  
E. Connolly-Strong ◽  
...  

Background:Following RA treatment recommendations, most people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) begin targeted therapy with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), even though inadequate response to TNFi therapies is widespread. Treatment changes from one medication to the next are currently fueled by disease-activity measures and eventually result in disease control for most patients; however, this “trial-and-error” approach wastes precious time on ineffective treatments. A delay in reaching treat-to-target goals has a negative effect on patient burden and, possibly, disease progression.1 Useful predictors for TNFi response have been challenging to identify but a specific molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test was shown to be predictive for inadequate response to TNFi therapies.2 The impact of such identification has the potential to result in improved patient outcomes, but further validation would be welcome, especially for response criteria other than ACR50, and in a stringent treat-to-target setting with lower baseline disease activity.Objectives:To validate the predictive value of the MSRC test in identifying those patients who do not meet EULAR good response criteria after 6 months of TNFi treatment.Methods:Data from a prospective cohort study conducted in the Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, the Netherlands) of RA patients who started adalimumab or etanercept TNFi as their first biologic were included.3 Baseline RNA samples and clinical assessments were used to identify patients who had a molecular signature1 of non-response to TNFi therapy. Outcomes were calculated at six months using DAS28-CRP-based EULAR good response, and high and low confidence responders and non-responders were identified using Monte Carlo simulation with 2,000 repeats and 70% precision cut off. Outcome measurements were blinded for test results. Treatment switch before 6 months was imputed as non-response. Odds ratios and area under the ROC curve (AUC) assessments were used to evaluate the ability of the MSRC test to predict inadequate response at 6 months against EULAR good response criteria.Results:A total of 68 out of 88 RA patients were identified to have a high-confidence response status and were included in analyses (Table 1). EULAR good response was observed in 45.5% (31/68) of patients. Patients were stratified according to detection of a molecular signature of non-response with an AUC of 0.61. The odds that a patient with the molecular signature of non-response at baseline failed to achieve a EULAR good response at 6 months was four times greater than that of a patient lacking the molecular signature (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-13.3).Table 1.Patient demographicsCharacteristicRA patients (N = 68)Age, median (SD)57 (11)Female, n (%)43 (63.2)CCP positive, n (%)34 (50.0)RF positive, n (%)38 (55.9)Prescribed adalimumab at baseline, n (%)11 (16.2)Prescribed etanercept at baseline, n (%)57 (83.8)Conclusion:In this validation study, the molecular signature of non-response identified patients who did not fulfill the EULAR good response criteria to TNFi therapies. The patient selection process for this study had limitations; additional analysis in an alternative cohort would further verify the performance of the MSRC test. Nevertheless, the test, previously validated for ACR50, now has been validated using EULAR good response in a treat-to-target setting.References:[1]Schipper LG et al, Time to achieve remission determines time to be in remission. Arthritis Res Ther 201[2]Mellors T, et al. Clinical Validation of a Blood-Based Predictive Test for Stratification of Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. Network and Systems Medicine 2020[3]Tweehuysen L et al. Predictive value of ex-vivo drug-inhibited cytokine production for clinical response to biologic DMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2019Disclosure of Interests:Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Celeste van der Tog: None declared, Alfons den Broeder Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Ted Mellors Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Erin Connolly-Strong Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Johanna Withers Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Alex Jones Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Viatcheslav Akmaev Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Raine ◽  
Jessica Manson ◽  
Coziana Ciurtin ◽  
Ian Giles

Abstract Background The utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK-US) in the measurement of disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well established. However, it has not been formally studied in pregnancy, with the literature limited to a single case report. Standard disease activity assessment in RA pregnancy comprises measurement of the DAS28(3) CRP score, which removes the visual analogue score (VAS) and replaces ESR with CRP, as both of these components may be confounded by pregnancy. Use of this modified score remains problematic as the tender joint count may be affected by non-specific musculoskeletal pain in pregnancy, and the swollen joint count may be obscured by peripheral oedema, especially late in pregnancy. No study of RA in pregnancy has used MSK-US to measure disease activity. Our objective was to conduct a pilot study of MSK-US in RA pregnancy, and compare findings with clinical assessment using the DAS28(3)CRP score. Methods We offered MSK-US to pregnant RA patients attending the UCLH obstetric rheumatology clinic from September 2018 to September 2019. Patients were assessed longitudinally through pregnancy/post-partum where possible. Examination was undertaken using a Logiq S8 US machine. The standard protocol comprised 22-joint assessment of hands (dorsal longitudinal and transverse views of wrists, metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints). In the feet, bilateral MTP joints were scanned with longitudinal views. Quantification of Power Doppler (PD) signal and grey scale (GS) synovitis was made as per the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) US definitions. PD and GS scores were calculated as mean scores of all joints scanned. Results To date, 17 pregnant RA patients have undergone a total of 35 MSK-US studies. Disease activity assessments showed 10/17 patients with persistent low activity through pregnancy, 5/17 with moderate or good response, 1/17 with no response and 1/17 with a moderate flare. Overall, PD scores correlated well with DAS28(3) CRP assessment (R2 = 0.68). All patients at moderate or high disease activity by DAS28(3) CRP had ≥1 joint with detectable PD signal, but 2/21 patients clinically in ‘remission’ and 3/7 patients in ‘low disease activity’ had detectable PD. One patient with only 2 tender and 1 swollen joints (and normal CRP; DAS28 3.17) had very extensive PD signal and contributed to the decision to recommence anti-TNF treatment in the 3rd trimester. It was noted that increased vascularity in pregnancy can complicate the assessment of synovial PD signal. MSK-US was particularly helpful in distinguishing true joint synovitis from subcutaneous oedema in the feet. Conclusion This is the first series of MSK-US in pregnant RA patients. The detection of active joint synovitis (by PD signal) in clinical remission/low disease activity states suggests a potential role for MSK-US in confirming apparent low disease activity in pregnancy, and thus guiding stratification of treatment. Disclosures C. Raine None. J. Manson None. C. Ciurtin None. I. Giles None.


2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
Maria N. Chamurlieva ◽  
Yulia L. Korsakova ◽  
Stefka G. Radenska-Lopovok ◽  
Tatiana V. Korotaeva

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Iwaszko ◽  
Joanna Wielińska ◽  
Jerzy Świerkot ◽  
Katarzyna Kolossa ◽  
Renata Sokolik ◽  
...  

ObjectiveRheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) belong to inflammatory rheumatic diseases, the group of conditions of unknown etiology. However, a strong genetic component in their pathogenesis has been well established. A dysregulation of cytokine networks plays an important role in the development of inflammatory arthritis. Interleukin 33 (IL-33) is a recently identified member of the IL-1 family. To date, the significance of IL-33 in inflammatory arthritis has been poorly studied. This research aimed to investigate the potential of IL-33 gene polymorphisms to serve as biomarkers for disease susceptibility and TNF inhibitor response in RA, AS, and PsA patients.Materials and MethodsIn total, 735 patients diagnosed with RA, AS, and PsA and 229 healthy individuals were enrolled in the study. Genotyping for three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the IL-33 gene, namely, rs16924159 (A/G), rs10975519 (T/C), and rs7044343 (C/T), was performed using polymerase chain reaction amplification employing LightSNiP assays.ResultsIn the present study, the IL-33 rs10975519 CC genotype was associated with a decreased risk of developing RA in females, while the IL-33 rs16924159 polymorphism was associated with the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy and clinical parameters for RA and AS patients. The IL-33 rs16924159 AA genotype correlated with higher disease activity and worse clinical outcomes in RA patients treated with TNF inhibitors, and AS patients carrying the IL-33 rs16924159 AA genotype had higher disease activity and a worse response to anti-TNF therapy. That indicates a deleterious role of the IL-33 rs16924159 AA genotype in the context of RA, as well as AS.ConclusionsThe obtained results suggest that IL-33 gene polymorphisms might be potential candidate biomarkers of disease susceptibility and anti-TNF treatment response in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.


2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 1611-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN J. LEE ◽  
HONG CHANG ◽  
YUSUF YAZICI ◽  
JEFFREY D. GREENBERG ◽  
JOEL M. KREMER ◽  
...  

Objective.Studies have suggested that early institution of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors improves functional status and slows radiographic progression among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To determine whether these findings have altered practice patterns, we used the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry to assess the pattern of TNF inhibitor utilization in the US over time.Methods.Demographics and disease activity data were collected for patients with RA. The trend of TNF inhibitor use during 2002–06 was evaluated prospectively using linear and logistic regression models.Results.Of the 11,397 patients with RA, 66% and 34% had established RA and early RA (disease duration < 3 yrs), respectively. The majority of patients were female and Caucasian. Despite comparable levels of disease activity, more of the patients with established RA were taking TNF inhibitors than those with early RA (40% vs 25%; p < 0.0001). The majority of patients (70%) taking TNF inhibitors were also receiving disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. The use of TNF inhibitors increased at a rate of 2.8% per year in established RA and 1.2% per year in early RA. The mean Clinical Disease Activity Index at the start of TNF inhibitors decreased at a rate of −0.233 per quarter (p = 0.006), while the mean Disease Activity Score decreased at a rate of −0.04 per quarter (p = 0.022).Conclusion.Utilization of TNF inhibitors in this multicenter, observational US cohort is increasing in both early and established RA, although it is more prominent among patients with established RA. The level of disease activity at which TNF inhibitors were initiated decreased over time in patients with both established and early RA.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
B. Fautrel ◽  
R. Caporali ◽  
E. Holdsworth ◽  
B. Donaghy ◽  
M. Khalid ◽  
...  

Background:The principles of treat to target (T2T) include defining an appropriate treatment target, assessed at pre-defined intervals, with a commitment to changing therapeutic approach if the target is not met (1). T2T is recommended as a key strategy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:To explore attitudes towards T2T, its implementation and stated treatment goals among physicians and their patients with RA.Methods:The Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™ was a large, quantitative, point-in-time survey conducted amongst rheumatologists (n=296) and their consulting patients with RA (n=3042) in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) between Q4 2019–Q3 2020. Physicians were recruited via publicly available lists, completing an online survey and medical record extraction for their next 10–12 consecutive patients. The same patients were invited to voluntarily complete a self-report questionnaire (n=1098, 36% response), collecting data on attitudes towards T2T and treatment goals.Results:Physicians reported that 76% of patients were in remission (DAS28: <2.6) or had low disease activity (DAS28: 2.6 – 3.2), and 24% had moderate-high disease activity (DAS28: >3.2). Patient mean age was 53.0 years (SD 14.0), mean time since diagnosis was 7.2 years (SD 7.2). The proportion of patients currently receiving an advanced therapy (AT; defined as biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD) was 68%, of whom 70% were on a first line AT. No difference was observed between disease activity groups.In the physician survey, 86% of physicians stated they followed T2T principals in at least some of their RA patients, and would utilize a T2T approach in RA patients with moderate-high disease activity (61%), the most uncontrolled patients (37%) and those who do not respond well to initial therapy (34%). In this sample of real-world RA patients, 66% were reported by physicians to be on a T2T plan at the time of data collection. The most common physician-reported targets were remission (DAS28: <2.6) (75%), improvement of quality of life (QoL) (41%) and reduction of pain (31%), with 85% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most stated reasons for not implementing T2T was physician preference not to adjust current treatment (34%), patient preference not to adjust current treatment (23%), and there are no achievable goals for this patient (16%).Overall, 29% of patients reported they were involved in setting their T2T goals, while 34% stated their T2T goals were set by their physicians only, and 29% perceived no T2T goal had been set (n=620). The most common overall T2T goals from the patient perspective were remission (61%), controlling symptoms (41%), and reducing impact on QoL (34%). Of those patients who acknowledged a T2T goal had been set (n=407), 77% reported their T2T goal was fully or partially achieved.Of 719 patients who had moderate-high disease activity, 57% were on a T2T plan, with 46% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most common physician-stated reason for not implementing T2T was a lack of achievable targets (29%).Conclusion:Rheumatologists in this study reported a strong belief in T2T. The most common physician-set T2T goals were remission, improvement of QoL and reduction of pain, corresponding with T2T goals as reported by patients. However, a third of patients in this cohort were not aware of a defined T2T objective in their management, which may be a result of a perceived lack of achievable goals by physicians. It may be desirable to promote more patient involvement in defining achievable targets amongst those with moderate-high disease activity who despite best efforts may not reach a clinical state of remission. Further research is needed to identify and understand goals important to RA patients.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R. Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis - are we there yet? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15(3):180-6.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Galapagos NV, Belgium.Medical writing support was provided by Gary Sidgwick, PhD (Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK) and editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), both funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Fautrel Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi, Samsung Bioepis, MSD, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Bethany Donaghy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Mona Khalid Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mark Moore Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Speakers bureau: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Paid instructor for: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Consultant of: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Grant/research support from: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Employee of: Gilead Sciences, and previously Sanofi and AstraZeneca, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Yves Piette Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Grünenthal and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Mylan and UCB, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grunenthal, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Jasper Broen Shareholder of: Pharming Group, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 458.1-458
Author(s):  
R. Yokochi ◽  
H. Tamai ◽  
T. Kido ◽  
Y. Yagyu ◽  
D. Waki ◽  
...  

Background:Several previous observational studies have suggested that patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond poorly to treatment, including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors1. However, its influence on methotrexate (MTX) treatment, which is the anchor drug of treat-to-target strategy in RA treatment, remains unclear.Objectives:We compared the clinical response to MTX in both anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive and -negative patients with MTX-naiive RA and investigated the reasons for the difference in response.Methods:We recruited 210 consecutive patients with RA who were newly started on MTX in this retrospective cohort study. The effect of the presence of anti-Ro/SSA antibodies on achieving low disease activity (LDA) of DAS28-CRP at six months after initiating MTX was investigated by using logistic regression analysis. CDAI, SDAI, concomitant using DMARDs and painkillers, patient’s and evaluator’s VAS, tender joint counts, and swollen joint counts at six months were also compared between the anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients and -negative patients. Missing data were imputed by using multiple imputations before multivariate analysis.Results:32 anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive patients and 178 anti-Ro/SSA antibody-negative patients were included. The rate of achieving DAS28-LDA at six months was significantly lower in the anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive patients than those in the anti-Ro/SSA antibody-negative patients (56.2% versus 75.8%, P=0.03). in the logistic regression analysis, the presence of anti-Ro/SSA antibodies was an independent negative predictor for achieving DAS-28-LDA at six months (OR:0.431, 95%CI: 0.190-0.978, P=0.044) (Table1). Anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive patients had significantly higher patient’s VAS at six months (median [IQR]: 22 [15-41] vs 19 [5-30], P=0.038), and prescribed NSAIDs (37.5% vs 18.0%, P=0.018). CDAI and SDAI after six months were not significantly different between the group.Conclusion:The presence of anti-Ro/SSA antibodies might be one of the predictive factors for the insufficient response to treat to target strategy in RA treatment. Residual pain was suspected as one of the mechanisms contributing to the lesser clinical response of MTX in anti-Ro antibody-positive RA.References:[1]Ran Matsudaira wt al. J Rheumatol 2011;38(11):2346-54Table 1.Logistic regression analysis for the rate of achieving DAS28 low disease activity at six months.Risk factor Odds ratio95%CIP valueAge at onset0.9930.968-1.0180.586Sex (woman)0.6430.300-1.3840.258RF-positive1.9620.853-4.5110.112ACPA-positive0.5520.225-1.3510.192Anti-Ro/SSA antibody-positive0.4310.190-0.9780.044Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document