Regional differences in anti-TNF-a therapy and surgery in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease patients: a Norwegian nationwide cohort study

Background and aims: During the last decades, substantial progress has been made in both medical and surgical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to determine the use of anti-TNFs and surgery during the first 3 years after diagnosis in IBD patients across the four health regions in Norway using nationwide patient registry data. Methods: This study used nationwide data from the Norwegian Patient Registry. Cumulative incidence of anti-TNF exposure and major surgery was calculated for patients diagnosed in 2010–2012. The analyses were stratified by diagnosis and health region. All patients were followed for an equal period of 3 years from diagnosis. Results: The study population included 8,257 IBD patients first registered between 2010 and 2012, of whom 2,829 were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 5,428 with ulcerative colitis (UC). Across Norway’s health regions, the cumulative incidence of major surgery after 3 years varied from 11.4% to 17.1% for CD and from 4.6% to 6.9% for UC. The cumulative incidence of anti-TNF exposure varied from 20.9% to 31.4% for CD and from 8.0% to 13.5% for UC. The region with the lowest anti-TNF use had the highest surgery rates for both UC and CD. Conclusions: Cumulative incidence of anti-TNF exposure and surgery varied significantly across Norway’s health regions during the three first years after IBD diagnosis

Incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in norway and the impact of different case definitions: A nationwide registry study

Background: Countries have different diagnostic procedures and treatment regimens for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. In addition to differences in population characteristics, completeness of data and health registries, different follow-up time and case definitions can have a large impact on estimates of the incidence and prevalence of IBD. Aim: The aim of this study was to use hospital and prescription data to estimate incidence and prevalence of Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), using different case definitions. Methods: This study used nationwide data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (2008 to 2017) and the Norwegian Prescription Database (2004 to April 2018). Incidence and prevalence were estimated using different case definitions of an IBD patient, varying the number of IBD-related hospital visits and IBD prescriptions required. The base case definition included patients with at least one IBD hospital visit and two IBD prescriptions or two IBD hospital visits. Results: From 2010 to 2017, 16,758 incident IBD patients fulfilled our base case definition, with 6045 diagnosed with CD (36.1%) and 10,713 (63.9%) with UC. For CD, 47.2% of the patients were male while 53.8% of UC patients were male. The base case incidence varied between 14.1 and 16.0 per 100,000 person-years for CD and 24.7 and 28.4/100,000 person-years for UC patients in the years 2010– 2017. When we required at least two IBD hospital visits, not utilizing the prescription data, the CD incidence was 22.3 per 100,000 person-years in 2010 and 13.9 per 100,000 person-years in 2017. For UC, the incidence was 47.4 and 20.6 per 100,000 person-years in 2010 and 2017. In 2017, the prevalence of CD was 0.27% (95% CI: 0.26– 0.27) and 0.50% (95% CI: 0.490– 0.502) for UC. Conclusion: According to our base case definition, the incidence of IBD in Norway was stable from 2010 to 2017. Both the incidence and prevalence of IBD in Norway is among the highest in the world. Moreover, the study also highlights the consequences of different case definitions

First-line biologic treatment of inflammatory bowel disease during the first 12 months after diagnosis from 2010 to 2016: a Norwegian nationwide registry study

Objectives The use of biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is likely to increase with lower costs and more biologics and biosimilars becoming available. Our aim was to estimate the trends in use of first-line biologics during the first year after diagnosis in a Norwegian IBD population from 2010 to 2016. Methods Data were collected from the Norwegian National Patient Registry and Norwegian Prescription Database. Patients defined as incident IBD cases between 2010 and 2016 were included and followed for 12 months. Patients were stratified by year of diagnosis to examine change over time. Chi-square test was used for calculations on proportions. Time from diagnosis to first biologic was calculated by Kaplan-Meier failure estimates. Results 14,645 patients were included, 5283 (36%) with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 9362 (64%) with ulcerative colitis (UC). In the 2010 and 2016 cohort, the proportion initiating biologics increased from 17% to 33% (p < .001) for CD and 7% to 13% (p < .001) for UC. The most frequently used first-line biologics were infliximab (CD: 64% and UC: 82%) and adalimumab (CD: 36% and UC: 15%). The highest registered use of adalimumab was in the 2012 cohort (CD: 56% and UC: 39%). In the 2014–2016 cohorts, infliximab was the most used first-line biologic for both CD and UC. Conclusions The proportion of IBD patients initiating biologics within 12 months after diagnosis increased between 2010 and 2016. The use of infliximab as first-line biologic increased after the approval of biosimilar infliximab in 2013

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis : Results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study

Background Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Methods The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between −2·5 and −4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between −1·5 and −4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than −4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). Findings Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43–40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45–60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40–0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39–0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68–0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42–0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40–0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66–0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95–1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90–1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02–1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58–1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98–1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02–1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10–1·71; p=0·0051). Interpretation Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis