Opportunities and challenges for real-world studies on chronic inflammatory joint diseases through data enrichment and collaboration between national registers : the Nordic example

RMD Open 2018;4:e000655. doi:10.1136/ rmdopen-2018-000655Peer reviewe

Second and third TNF inhibitors in European patients with axial spondyloarthritis: Effectiveness and impact of the reason for switching

OBJECTIVE: To investigate real-world effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and the association with 1) treatment line (second and third TNFi-series) and 2) reason for withdrawal from the preceding TNFi (lack of efficacy (LOE) versus adverse events (AE)). METHODS: Prospectively collected routine care data from 12 European registries were pooled. Rates for 12-month drug retention and 6-month remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score C-reactive protein inactive disease (ASDAS-ID)) were assessed in second and third TNFi-series and stratified by withdrawal reason. RESULTS: We included 8254 s and 2939 third TNFi-series; 12-month drug retention rates were similar (71%). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates were higher for the second (23%) than third TNFi (16%). Twelve-month drug retention rates for patients withdrawing from the preceding TNFi due to AE versus LOE were similar for the second (68% and 67%) and third TNFi (both 68%), while for the second TNFi, rates were lower in primary than secondary non-responders (LOE < 26 versus ≥26 weeks) (58% versus 71%, p< 0.001). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates for the second TNFi were higher if the withdrawal reason was AE (27%) versus LOE (17%), p< 0.001, while similar for the third TNFi (19% versus 13%, p= 0.20). CONCLUSION: A similar proportion of axSpA patients remained on a second and third TNFi after one year, but with low remission rates for the third TNFi. Remission rates on the second TNFi (but not the third) were higher if the withdrawal reason from the preceding TNFi was AE versus LOE

Differences and similarities between the EULAR/ASAS-EULAR and national recommendations for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis across Europe

This is the first report comparing EULAR and national treatment recommendations for PsA patients across Europe, and the first this decade to compare ASAS-EULAR and national treatment recommendations in axSpA patients. An electronic survey was completed from October 2021-April 2022 by rheumatologists in 15 European countries. One and four countries followed all EULAR and ASAS-EULAR recommendations, respectively. Five countries had no national treatment recommendations for PsA and/or axSpA, but followed other regulations. In several countries, national treatment recommendations predated the most recent EULAR/ASAS-EULAR recommendations. Entry criteria for starting biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs varied considerably. In several countries, for PsA patients with significant skin involvement, interleukin-17 inhibitors were not given preference. The positioning of Janus Kinase inhibitors differed and Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors were not in use/reimbursed in most countries. This study may motivate European countries to update their national treatment recommendations, to align them better with the latest international recommendations

Impact of discordance between patient's and evaluator's global assessment on treatment outcomes in 14 868 patients with spondyloarthritis

Funding: This work was supported by Novartis. Novartis had no influence on the data collection, statistical analyses, manuscript preparation or decision to submit.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprintPostprintPostprin

Second and third TNF inhibitors in European patients with axial spondyloarthritis : Effectiveness and impact of the reason for switching

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.OBJECTIVE: To investigate real-world effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and the association with 1) treatment line (second and third TNFi-series) and 2) reason for withdrawal from the preceding TNFi (lack of efficacy (LOE) versus adverse events (AE)). METHODS: Prospectively collected routine care data from 12 European registries were pooled. Rates for 12-month drug retention and 6-month remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score C-reactive protein inactive disease (ASDAS-ID)) were assessed in second and third TNFi-series and stratified by withdrawal reason. RESULTS: We included 8254 s and 2939 third TNFi-series; 12-month drug retention rates were similar (71%). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates were higher for the second (23%) than third TNFi (16%). Twelve-month drug retention rates for patients withdrawing from the preceding TNFi due to AE versus LOE were similar for the second (68% and 67%) and third TNFi (both 68%), while for the second TNFi, rates were lower in primary than secondary non-responders (LOE < 26 versus ≥26 weeks) (58% versus 71%, p< 0.001). Six-month ASDAS-ID rates for the second TNFi were higher if the withdrawal reason was AE (27%) versus LOE (17%), p< 0.001, while similar for the third TNFi (19% versus 13%, p= 0.20). CONCLUSION: A similar proportion of axSpA patients remained on a second and third TNFi after one year, but with low remission rates for the third TNFi. Remission rates on the second TNFi (but not the third) were higher if the withdrawal reason from the preceding TNFi was AE versus LOE.Peer reviewe

Imputing missing data of function and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis registers : What is the best technique?

Objective To compare several methods of missing data imputation for function (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and for disease activity (Disease Activity Score-28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods One thousand RA patients from observational cohort studies with complete data for function and disease activity at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months were selected to conduct a simulation study. Values were deleted at random or following a predicted attrition bias. Three types of imputation were performed: (1) methods imputing forward in time (last observation carried forward; linear forward extrapolation); (2) methods considering data both forward and backward in time (nearest available observation - NAO; linear extrapolation; polynomial extrapolation); and (3) methods using multi-individual models (linear mixed effects cubic regression - LME3; multiple imputation by chained equation - MICE). The performance of each estimation method was assessed using the difference between the mean outcome value, the remission and low disease activity rates after imputation of the missing values and the true value. Results When imputing missing baseline values, all methods underestimated equally the true value, but LME3 and MICE correctly estimated remission and low disease activity rates. When imputing missing follow-up values at 6, 12, or 24 months, NAO provided the least biassed estimate of the mean disease activity and corresponding remission rate. These results were not affected by the presence of attrition bias. Conclusion When imputing function and disease activity in large registers of active RA patients, researchers can consider the use of a simple method such as NAO for missing follow-up data, and the use of mixed-effects regression or multiple imputation for baseline data