Low starting dosage of infliximab with possible escalating dosage in psoriatic arthritis gives the same treatment results as standard dosage of adalimumab or etanercept: results from the nationwide Icelandic ICEBIO registry

Objective: To explore differences in response to a low dosage regimen of infliximab with an escalating dosage in comparison to a standard dosage of etanercept and adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: Biologically naïve PsA patients who were beginning anti-TNF-α therapy were selected from the ICEBIO registry. Demographics and clinical differences were compared in four treatment groups: infliximab 4 mg/kg; etanercept or adalimumab at baseline and on follow-up (6 and 12 months, last visit). The Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test was used for comparison of the groups and the Wilcoxon test to compare the two infliximab dosage regimens. Results: One hundred and eighty-five patients (61% female) were identified; 84 patients received infliximab, 66 etanercept, and 35 adalimumab. A total of 19% of the patients treated with infliximab escalated their dosage ≥4 mg/kg. No significant differences were observed at baseline in respect to visual analog scale (VAS) pain, VAS fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire, C-reactive protein (CRP), numbers of swollen or tender joints, or Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-CRP values. A similar treatment response was observed in all four treatment groups on follow-up. Conclusion: In respect to treatment effects, a low dosage of infliximab with possible escalating dosage is acceptable for the majority of PsA patients who are in need of biological treatment.The study was partly funded by a study grant from The Icelandic Society for Rheumatology.Peer Reviewe

Comorbidities in a Cohort of 66 Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis Mutilans-Results From the Nordic PAM Study

Objective: Psoriatic arthritis mutilans (PAM) is the most severe phenotype of psoriatic arthritis due to excessive bone erosion causing joint destruction and decreased functional capacity. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of comorbidities among patients with PAM and the association between comorbidities and joint involvement. Methods: A total of 66 patients aged >= 18 years from the Nordic countries with past or present psoriasis along with at least one mutilated joint were included in the present study. Results: The median number of comorbid conditions per patient was 1 [interquartile range (IQR) 0-2] and 16.7% reported three or more comorbidities. The most frequent comorbidity was hypertension (36.4%). The median number of mutilated joints per patient was 3 (IQR 1-8.3; range 1-38). Conclusion: Two thirds of the patients with PAM reported comorbid conditions and the most frequent was hypertension which affected more than a third of the patients. However, this study was unable to detect any association between comorbidities and the severity of PAM.Peer reviewe

Radiographic scoring systems for psoriatic arthritis are insufficient for psoriatic arthritis mutilans : results from the Nordic PAM Study

Background Psoriatic arthritis mutilans (PAM) is the most severe phenotype of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Purpose To describe the radiological features in PAM and explore whether existing scoring systems for radiological damage in psoriatic arthritis are applicable for PAM. Material and Methods Radiographs were scored according to the modified Sharp-van der Heijde (mSvdH) and the Psoriatic Arthritis Ratingen Score (PARS) systems for PsA. Results At inclusion, 55 PAM patients (49% women, mean age 58 +/- 12 years) had conventional radiographs of both hands and feet. A total of 869 PAM joints were detected and 193 joints with ankylosis. The mean total mSvdH score was 213.7 +/- 137.8 (41% of maximum) with a higher score for hands than for feet: 136.6 +/- 90.1 vs. 79.1 +/- 60.9. However, the total score was relatively higher in the feet than in the hands when compared to the highest possible scoring (47% vs. 38% of max). The mean total PARS score was 126.3 +/- 79.6 (35% of max). Scoring for joint destruction was higher than for proliferation (22% vs. 11% of max). Strong correlation was found between mSvdH and PARS (r(2) = 0.913). A significant correlation was found between scoring and duration of arthritis and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. History of smoking, BMI, and gender did not influence the scoring values. Conclusions The two scoring systems studied may not be ideal to indicate progression of PAM in advanced disease since they reach ceiling effects rather early. Therefore, reporting early signs suggestive of PAM, e.g. signs of pencil-in-cup deformities or osteolysis, is crucial. This would reveal the presence of PAM and might lead to improved treatment in order to minimize joint damage.Peer reviewe

A Clinical Decision Support System for the Diagnosis, Fracture Risks and Treatment of Osteoporosis

Expanding medical knowledge increases the potential risk of medical errors in clinical practice. We present, OPAD, a clinical decision support system in the field of the medical care of osteoporosis. We utilize clinical information from international guidelines and experts in the field of osteoporosis. Physicians are provided with user interface to insert standard patient data, from which OPAD provides instant diagnostic comments, 10-year risk of fragility fracture, treatment options for the given case, and when to offer a follow-up DXA-evaluation. Thus, the medical decision making is standardized according to the best expert knowledge at any given time. OPAD was evaluated in a set of 308 randomly selected individuals. OPAD’s ten-year fracture risk computation is nearly identical to FRAX (r = 0.988). In 58% of cases OPAD recommended DXA evaluation at the present time. Following a DXA measurement in all individuals, 71% of those that were recommended to have DXA at the present time received recommendation for further investigation or specific treatment by the OPAD. In only 5.9% of individuals in which DXA was not recommended, the result of the BMD measurement changed the recommendations given by OPAD

Short-term, intermediate-term and long-term risks of acute coronary syndrome in cohorts of patients with RA starting biologic DMARDs : results from four Nordic countries

Objectives To compare the 1-year, 2-year and 5-year incidences of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting any of the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) currently available in clinical practice and to anchor these results with a general population comparator. Methods Observational cohort study, with patients from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden starting a bDMARD during 2008-2017. Time to first ACS was identified through register linkages. We calculated the 1-year, 2-year and 5-year incidence rates (IR) (on drug and ever since treatment start) and used Cox regression (HRs) to compare ACS incidences across treatments taking ACS risk factors into account. Analyses were further performed separately in subgroups defined by age, number of previous bDMARDs and history of cardiovascular disease. We also compared ACS incidences to an individually matched general population cohort. Results 24 083 patients (75% women, mean age 56 years) contributing 40 850 treatment courses were included. During the maximum (5 years) follow-up (141 257 person-years (pyrs)), 780 ACS events occurred (crude IR 5.5 per 1000 pyrs). Overall, the incidence of ACS in RA was 80% higher than that in the general population. For all bDMARDs and follow-up definitions, HRs were close to 1 (etanercept as reference) with the exception of the 5-year risk window, where signals for abatacept, infliximab and rituximab were noted. Conclusion The rate of ACS among patients with RA initiating bDMARDs remains elevated compared with the general population. As used in routine care, the short-term, intermediate-term and longer-term risks of ACS vary little across individual bDMARDs.Peer reviewe

Head-to-head comparison of aggressive conventional therapy and three biological treatments and comparison of two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to treatment : study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor, phase 4 study

Background: New targeted therapies and improved treatment strategies have dramatically improved the outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is unknown whether different early aggressive interventions can induce stable remission or a low-active disease state that can be maintained with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy, and whether they differ in efficacy and safety. The Nordic Rheumatic Diseases Strategy Trials And Registries (NORD-STAR) study will assess and compare (1) the proportion of patients who achieve remission in a head-to-head comparison between csDMARD plus glucocorticoid therapy and three different biological DMARD (bDMARD) therapies with different modes of action and (2) two de-escalation strategies in patients who respond to first-line therapy. Methods/design: In a pragmatic, 80-160-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, phase 4 study, 800 patients with early RA (symptom duration less than 24 months) are randomized 1: 1: 1: 1 to one of four different treatment arms: (1) aggressive csDMARD therapy with methotrexate + sulphasalazine + hydroxychloroquine + i. a. glucocorticoids (arm 1A) or methotrexate + prednisolone p.o. (arm 1B), (2) methotrexate + certolizumab-pegol, (3) methotrexate + abatacept, or (4) methotrexate + tocilizumab. The primary clinical endpoint is the proportion of patients reaching Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission at week 24. Patients in stable remission over 24 consecutive weeks enter part 2 of the study earliest after 48 weeks. Patients not achieving sustained CDAI remission over 24 consecutive weeks, exit the study after 80 weeks. In part 2, patients are re-randomized to two different de-escalation strategies, either immediate or delayed (after 24 weeks) tapering, followed by cessation of study medication. All patients remain on stable doses of methotrexate. The primary clinical endpoint in part 2 is the proportion of patients in remission (CDAI Discussion: NORD-STAR is the first investigator-initiated, randomized, early RA trial to compare (1) csDMARD and three different bDMARD therapies head to head and (2) two different de-escalation strategies. The trial has the potential to identify which treatment strategy to apply in early RA to achieve the best possible outcomes for both patients and society.Peer reviewe

Patients with psoriatic arthritis who are not eligible for randomised controlled trials for TNF inhibitors have treatment response and drug survival similar to those who are eligible.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadOBJECTIVES: To determine in a retrospective cohort whether patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who would not have fulfilled the inclusion criteria for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the TNF inhibitor (TNFi) chosen for their treatment (excl) have similar benefits and drug survival as those patients who would have (incl). METHODS: All patients with rheumatic disorders who are treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Iceland are registered in ICEBIO. On 1 February 2016, 329 individuals with PsA were registered in ICEBIO, of whom 231 had data available for their first start of TNFi and could be evaluated according to the inclusion criteria of the respective RCTs. Disease activity was collected at baseline using Visual Analogue Scale (pain, fatigue and global (patient and physician) assessments), swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count (TJC), Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment response was measured at 6 and 18 months according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria, DAS28-CRP and Disease Activity Score in Psoriatic Arthritis for 28 joints. Drug survival rate was also analysed. RESULTS: The demographics of these two groups were similar at baseline, although the incl group had higher SJC (5.5 vs 3.8) and subsequently higher DAS28-CRP (4.6 vs 4.2). While a larger change in disease activity was observed in the incl group with respect to HAQ and SJC, both groups had similar disease activity at follow-up. Drug survival was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA who would not have fulfilled the inclusion criteria in RCTs reach similar disease activity scores at follow-up of 6 and 18 months and have similar drug survival as those patients who would have been included in RCTs.NordForsk University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland Society for Rheumatology of Icelan

A Patients' Perspective Towards the Injection Devices for Humira® and Imraldi® in a Nationwide Switching Program.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadObjective: Due to a tender process in Iceland, all patients on Humira® were switched nationwide to its biosimilar Imraldi® in March 2019. The study aimed to explore the patient's perspective of the Humira® and Imraldi® injection devices. Methods: A standard telephone interview was carried out among patients with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, who underwent this nationwide switching program a few months earlier. Results: The response rate was 84.5% (n = 198). The average age was 50.8 years, and 53.5% were female. The patients self-administered the drugs in 96% of the cases. The majority (90.5%) stated that they received individualized instruction on using the Humira® pen, compared to 18.2% who accepted instruction in the case of the Imraldi® pen. Almost half (46.6%) of the patients found it more difficult to use the Imraldi® pen than the Humira® pen, while only 12.5% found the Imraldi® pen easier to use. Firstly, these differences were due to more painful insertion of the needle (62.2%) and secondly, due to the experience, the injection process was different (63.0%). Conclusion: Patients with inflammatory disorders who have been treated regularly with adalimumab preferred the Humira® injection device over the Imraldi® device, according to our results. After all, these injection devices' structure and content are not the same, although both contain the same active ingredient, i.e. adalimumab. Our results highlight the importance of thorough information, not only with an information letter but also with the possibilities for individualized introduction in planning switching to biosimilars. Keywords: Humira; Imraldi; adalimumab; injection devices; medicine administration at home

Is the risk of infection higher during treatment with secukinumab than with TNF inhibitors? An observational study from the Nordic countries

Objectives The positioning of secukinumab in the treatment of axial SpA (axSpA) and PsA is debated, partly due to a limited understanding of the comparative safety of the available treatments. We aimed to assess the risk of the key safety outcome infections during treatment with secukinumab and TNF inhibitors (TNFi). Methods Patients with SpA and PsA starting secukinumab or TNFi year 2015 through 2018 were identified in four Nordic rheumatology registers. The first hospitalized infection during the first year of treatment was identified through linkage to national registers. Incidence rates (IRs) with 95% CIs per 100 patient-years were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated through Cox regression, with secukinumab as the reference. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate confounding by indication. Results Among 7708 patients with SpA and 5760 patients with PsA, we identified 16 229 treatment courses of TNFi (53% bionaive) and 1948 with secukinumab (11% bionaive). For secukinumab, the first-year risk of hospitalized infection was 3.5% (IR 5.0; 3.9-6.3), compared with 1.7% (IR 2.3; 1.7-3.0) during 3201 courses with adalimumab, with the IRs for other TNFi lying in between these values. The adjusted HR for adalimumab, compared with secukinumab, was 0.58 (0.39-0.85). In sensitivity analyses, the difference from secukinumab was somewhat attenuated and in some analyses no longer statistically significant. Conclusion When used according to clinical practice in the Nordic countries, the observed first-year absolute risk of hospitalized infection was doubled for secukinumab compared with adalimumab. This excess risk seemed largely explained by confounding by indication.Peer reviewe