scholarly journals Long-term Glucocorticoid Use in Rheumatoid Arthritis

2020 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201137
Author(s):  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Theodore Pincus

We read with interest the article by Hanly and Lethbridge concerning long-term patterns of glucocorticoid (GC) use in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1. Their report indicates that GC use has remained relatively stable over time, in contrast to greater use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treat-to-target directive. They also report that rheumatologists prescribe lower doses than other physicians, and that the mean dose for rheumatologists has decreased over time.

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
N. V. Chichasova

The possibilities of rheumatoid arthritis therapy have been significantly expanded today. In addition to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologic agents (BAs), and a targeted synthetic DMARD, a control treatment strategy has been put into practice.The paper demonstrates successes in the early prescription of csDMARD and the implementation of treat-to-target principles – to achieve the goal after 6 months in 50% of patients receiving subcutaneous methotrexate and 45% of those using a Leflunomide generic. During this therapy, there is a lower need for BAs and targeted synthetic DMARDs. The priority problem is to train general practitioners in methods for the early detection of RA and to set up schools for these patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mina Tadrous ◽  
Mirhad Lončar ◽  
Peter Dyrda

Utilization patterns of csDMARDs were highly comparable between drug plans overall (in decreasing order: methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, and azathioprine). The proportion of csDMARDs were comparable (e.g., approximately 30% of csDMARD use for methotrexate), although differences in coverage criteria may have resulted in variances in the use of leflunomide. Differences in adjudication of coverage criteria may have resulted in a modest variance in the number of csDMARDs used prior to initiating bDMARDs (i.e., allowing for an “early escape” to bDMARDs for some jurisdictions such as Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces). The mean time to initiate bDMARD therapy (range of 664 to 792 days) revealed a divergence between jurisdictions into 2 groupings whereby Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic provinces drug plans (mean time of 664 to 681 days) saw the initiation of bDMARDs approximately 4 months faster versus other jurisdictions (British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, with a mean time of 748 to 792 days), possibly due to their coverage criteria not requiring 3 lines of csDMARDs therapy. Despite differences in the time to initiate bDMARDs, there was no notable difference in the persistence of bDMARDs 6 months after the initiation for any drug plan (61% to 76% range for patients 67 years of age and older). Utilization patterns of bDMARDs was highly comparable between drug plans (i.e., highest use with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab), although British Columbia and Manitoba were the only jurisdictions that saw decreasing costs per patient of bDMARDs over time, likely due to a higher uptake of biosimilars or other managed formulary strategies such as tiering.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-189
Author(s):  
Ripa Akter ◽  
Walter P. Maksymowych ◽  
M. Liam Martin ◽  
David B. Hogan

Background Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but older patients reportedly experience more adverse events (AEs) and show variable treatment response. The objective of this study was to evaluate AEs and effectiveness of bDMARDs in a cohort of older patients. Methods AE and treatment effectiveness (based on DAS28 scores) data from a prospective provincial pharmacovigilance program for the years 2006–2009 in patients 55–64, 65–74, and 75+ years of age were compared. An intention to treat analysis with chisquare and unpaired t-testing for significance was performed. Results There were a total of 333 patients (156 were aged 55–64, 125 were 65–74, 52 were 75+). Those 75+ had higher disease activity and worse functional status at baseline. Among those 75+, AEs with bDMARDs were more common and likely to lead to discontinuation of therapy, be graded as severe, and classified as infectious (p < .05). Remission rate among those 75+ was significantly higher than patients 65–74. Etanercept was the most commonly used drug in all age groups. Conclusion Patients 75+ treated with bDMARDs are at a significantly greater risk of AEs, including infectious ones. The higher remission found in the oldest age group warrants further study.


2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1113-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie L Nam ◽  
Kaoru Takase-Minegishi ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo update the evidence for the efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force treatment recommendations.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for phase III or IV (or phase II, if these studies were lacking) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2013 and February 2016. Abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR conferences were obtained.ResultsThe RCTs confirmed greater efficacy with a bDMARD+conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) versus a csDMARDs alone (level 1A evidence). Using a treat-to-target strategy approach, commencing and escalating csDMARD therapy and adding a bDMARD in cases of non-response, is an effective approach (1B). If a bDMARD had failed, improvements in clinical response were seen on switching to another bDMARD (1A), but no clear advantage was seen for switching to an agent with another mode of action. Maintenance of clinical response in patients in remission or low disease activity was best when continuing rather than stopping a bDMARD, but bDMARD dose reduction or ‘spacing’ was possible, with a substantial proportion of patients achieving bDMARD-free remission (2B). RCTs have also demonstrated efficacy of several new bDMARDs and biosimilar DMARDs (1B).ConclusionsThis systematic literature review consistently confirmed the previously reported efficacy of bDMARDs in RA and provided additional information on bDMARD switching and dose reduction.


2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1102-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Sharzad Emamikia ◽  
Jackie Nam ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Josef Smolen ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the 2016 update of the recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAn SLR for the period between 2013 and 2016 was undertaken to assess the efficacy of glucocorticoids (GCs), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (tofacitinib and baricitinib) in randomised clinical trials.ResultsFor GCs, four studies were included in the SLR. Patients without poor prognostic factors experienced benefit when GCs were added to methotrexate (MTX). Lower doses of GCs were similar to higher doses. For csDMARDs, two new studies comparing MTX monotherapy with combination csDMARD were included in the SLR. In the tREACH trial at the end of 12 months no difference between the groups in disease activity, functional ability and radiographic progression was seen, using principles of tight control (treat-to-target). In the CareRA trial, combination therapy with csDMARDs was not superior to MTX monotherapy and monotherapy was better tolerated.For tsDMARDs, tofacitinib and baricitinib were shown to be more effective than placebo (MTX) in different patient populations.ConclusionsAddition of GCs to csDMARD therapy may be beneficial but the benefits should be balanced against the risk of toxicity. Under tight control conditions MTX monotherapy is not less effective than combination csDMARDs, but better tolerated. Tofacitinib and baricitinib are efficacious in patients with RA, including those with refractory disease.


2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 506-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Abasolo ◽  
Leticia Leon ◽  
Luis Rodriguez-Rodriguez ◽  
Aurelio Tobias ◽  
Zulema Rosales ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document