The EULAR Study Group for Registers and Observational Drug Studies: comparability of the patient case mix in the European biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug registers

Patient perspectives on long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. A qualitative study from the OMERACT patient outcomes in longitudinal studies working group

OBJECTIVES

To identify patient-centered domains with long-term relevance to people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured individual cognitive interviews of patients with RA with at least five years of disease duration, sampled from five different countries (United States, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Argentina). Participants were encouraged to discuss their long-term concerns regarding RA. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis within a constructivist/interpretivist theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants were interviewed, 24 were women. Six main themes, representing important aspects of the daily life of people with RA were generated: (i) Living with symptoms and functional limitations, (ii) Lack of participation, (iii) Partner and family issues, (iv) Risk of damage to vital organs, (v) Coping strategies, and (vi) Healthcare concerns, primarily expressed by participants from non-European countries lacking universal healthcare coverage. In addition, participants discussed the importance of contextual factors and how they impact long-term outcomes. These included attitudes towards disease, social support, or financial burdens.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified six domains of importance to people with RA that are seldom measured in longitudinal registries and should be considered in patient-centered longitudinal studies.

Paradoxical Reactions to Biologicals in Chronic Inflammatory Systemic Diseases

BACKGROUND

Biological agents that contain substances affecting the immune system are increasingly being used to treat chronic inflammatory systemic diseases. Aside from the expected adverse effects, they can also induce unexpected paradoxical reactions (PR). A reaction is called paradoxical when a substance that is generally therapeutically effective induces the opposite of what is intended, with the new appearance or exacerbation of inflammatory changes in the skin and other organs.

METHODS

The paradoxical reactions that have been described since 1997 are presented here on the basis of the available literature on the main types of chronic inflammatory systemic disease, which was retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

Many studies and registers to date contain no mention of paradoxical reactions. Anti- TNF-alpha treatment for patients with ankylosing spondylitis leads to paradoxical reactions in 19 per 1000 patient years, compared to 11 per 1000 patient years with conventional treatment; the corresponding frequency for paradoxical psoriasis in patients with other chronic inflammatory systemic diseases are 1.04-3.68 versus 1.45 per 1000 patient years. Paradoxical reactions tend to be more common with anti-TNF-alpha treatment than, for example, with the administration of ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and other agents. It is unclear whether some drugs have been noted to cause PR more commonly than others because of varying times since their approval, differences in immunogenicity, and differences between their target structures.

CONCLUSION

Paradoxical reactions induced by biological agents are a problem confronting physicians in multiple specialties. They need to be distinguished from infectious and neoplastic diseases and from autoimmune conditions of other types. The treatment options for paradoxical reactions include local treatment, symptomatic therapy, prednisolone administration, and the discontinuation or switching of the biological agent, although some patients will react with a further paradoxical reaction to a different biological agent that is used instead.

Heterogeneity in patient characteristics and differences in treatment across four Canadian rheumatoid arthritis cohorts

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across 4 Canadian cohorts.

METHODS

The four longitudinal cohorts included: The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) (n=2878); Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) (n=3734); RHUMADATA® (Quebec, n=2890), and the Rheum4U Precision Health Registry (Calgary, n=709). Data were from cohort inception (range 1998-2016) to 2020. Clinical characteristics and drug treatments were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

10,211 patients with RA were included. The percentage of patients who entered the cohort with early RA ( ≤ 2 years of disease at enrolment) ranged from 29% (Rheum4U) to 100% (CATCH). Mean age (55 years), sex (74% female) and seropositivity (69%) were similar between cohorts. At the time of initial disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) use, median disease activity scores (DAS-28) varied, ranging from 2.99 (Rheum4U) to 5.19 (CATCH), but were more similar at the time of the first DMARD switch (range:3.57-5.03), first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD (bDAMRD, tsDMARD) use (range:4.01-4.67) and second bDAMRD or tsDMARD (range:3.71-4.39). The initial DMARD was most commonly methotrexate, either in monotherapy (32%, range:18%-40%) or dual therapy (34%, range:29%- 42%). The first DMARD switch was to another DMARD monotherapy in 20% (range:10%- 32%), dual therapy in 49% (range:39%-56%), and bDMARD or tsDMARD in 24% (range:15%- 28%). The first bDMARD was an anti-TNF in 79% (range:78%-85%).

CONCLUSION

Canadian RA cohorts demonstrate some heterogeneity in treatment which could reflect differences in inclusion criteria, calendar year, or regional differences. This project is a first step towards conducting harmonized analyses across Canadian RA cohorts.

Tuberculosis in biologic users for rheumatic diseases: results from the South African Biologics Registry (SABIO)

Objectives

To evaluate the rate of tuberculosis (TB) in biologic users for rheumatic diseases in South Africa, the effectiveness of our latent TB infection (LTBI) programme, risk factors and outcome.

Methods

TB cases were collected from the South African Biologics Registry (SABIO), rheumatologists and pharmaceutical companies. Demographics, LTBI screening and treatment, biological and disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies, TB diagnosis and outcomes were recorded.

Results

96 TB cases were collected from 1999 to June 2017: rheumatoid arthritis 55, ankylosing spondylitis 27, psoriatic arthritis 4, and juvenile inflammatory arthritis 10. The TB rate was 1240/100 000 person years for biologic users (n=96) versus the biologic naive cohort of 0/100 000 years with an incidence rate difference of 0.0124 (p<0.0001). 60/96 had pulmonary and 36/96 had extra-pulmonary TB. Reactivation TB occurred in 45/96 cases. TB occurred in all biologics licenced in South Africa, the majority in monoclonal inhibitors (1683/100 000 person years) compared with etanercept (861/100 000 person years) and non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (681/100 000 person years). The incidence rate ratio for monoclonal inhibitors compared with etanercept was 1.96 (p=0.005) and 2.47 (p=0.002) compared with non-TNF inhibitors with no significant difference between non-TNF inhibitors and etanercept (p=0.336). From those (12.9%) who screened LTBI positive, 14 developed TB, while the majority (77) screened LTBI negative. Black race, male sex, younger age and residence in the Western Cape were statistical risk factors. Two drug resistant TB cases and six deaths occurred.

Conclusion

Reactivation and new onset TB is a significant risk for all biologics users in SA. Screening for LTBI is an imperative preventative strategy.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Targeted Therapies meeting 2019

Objectives

To detail the greatest areas of unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology.

Methods

The 21st annual international Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting brought together more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of 5 disease-specific groups with 20–30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In each group, experts were asked to identify unmet clinical and translational research needs in general and then to prioritise and detail the most important specific needs within each disease area.

Results

Overarching themes across all disease states included the need to innovate clinical trial design with emphasis on studying patients with refractory disease, the development of trials that take into account disease endotypes and patients with overlapping inflammatory diseases, the need to better understand the prevalence and incidence of inflammatory diseases in developing regions of the world and ultimately to develop therapies that can cure inflammatory autoimmune diseases.

Conclusions

Unmet needs for new therapies and trial designs, particularly for those with treatment refractory disease, remain a top priority in rheumatology.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Malignancy and rheumatoid arthritis: Epidemiology, risk factors and management

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory condition that can result in pain and functional disability. It is also associated with an increased occurrence of comorbidities, including an increased risk of certain cancers such as lung cancer and lymphoma. The aetiopathogenesis of this increased cancer risk is likely multifactorial and includes shared risk factors as well as chronic inflammation. There is also a concern that the treatment for RA itself may increase this risk further, particularly treatment with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This paper aims to review the evidence for the increased risk of cancer in RA as well as the latest evidence for the association between DMARDs and tumorigenesis. It also discusses the evidence for the management of patients with biologic DMARDs in the setting of existing cancer.

Biologics registers in RA: methodological aspects, current role and future applications

The beginning of the 21st century saw a biopharmaceutical revolution in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. The fast-evolving use of biologic therapies highlighted the need to develop registers at national and international levels with the aim of collecting long-term data on patient outcomes. Over the past 15 years, many biologics registers have contributed a wealth of data and provided robust and reliable evidence on the use, effectiveness and safety of these therapies. The unavoidable challenges posed by the continuous introduction of new therapies, particularly with regard to understanding their long-term safety, highlights the importance of learning from experience with established biologic therapies. In this Perspectives article, the role of biologics registers in bridging the evidence gap between efficacy in clinical trials and real-world effectiveness is discussed, with a focus on methodological aspects of registers, their unique features and challenges and their role going forward.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To assess the safety of synthetic (s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to inform the European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the management of RA.

Methods

Systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies comparing any DMARD with another intervention for the management of patients with RA. All safety outcomes were included. A comparator group was required for the study to be included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Hayden's tool.

Results

Twenty-six observational studies addressing diverse safety outcomes of therapy with bDMARDs met eligibility criteria (15 on serious infections, 4 on malignancies). Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Together with the evidence from the 2013 SLR, based on 15 studies, 7 at low risk of bias, patients on bDMARDs compared with patients on conventional sDMARDs had a higher risk of serious infections (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.1 to 1.8)—without differences across bDMARDs—a higher risk of tuberculosis (aHR 2.7 to 12.5), but no increased risk of infection by herpes zoster. Patients on bDMARDs did not have an increased risk of malignancies in general, lymphoma or non-melanoma skin cancer, but the risk of melanoma may be slightly increased (aHR 1.5).

Conclusions

These findings confirm the known safety pattern of bDMARDs, including both tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNFi, for the treatment of RA.

Body mass does not impact the clinical response to intravenous abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Analysis from the "pan-European registry collaboration for abatacept (PANABA)

Some evidences suggest that obesity impairs the effectiveness of TNF inhibitors. We examined the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the clinical effectiveness of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This is a pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohorts of RA patients. All patients with available BMI were included in this study. The primary endpoint was drug retention of abatacept in the different BMI categories. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for drug discontinuation. A secondary endpoint was EULAR/LUNDEX response rates at 6/12 months. Of the 2015 RA patients initiating therapy with IV abatacept, 380 (18.9%) were classified as obese. Obese patients had more functional disability, and were less often RF positive. The median abatacept retention time was 1.91 years for obese RA patients compared to 2.12 years for non-obese patients (p = 0.15). The risk of abatacept discontinuation was not significantly different for overweight (HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.89-1.19)), or for obese (HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.89-1.30)) compared to normal-weight patients. Rheumatoid factor positivity reduced the risk of abatacept discontinuation (HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.95)), while previous biologic therapy was positively associated with drug interruption (HRs increasing from 1.68 to 2.16 with the line of treatments). Obese and non-obese patients attained similar rates of EULAR/LUNDEX clinical response at 6/12 months. Drug retention and clinical response rates to abatacept do not seem to be decreased by obesity in RA patients.

Validity of data collected in BIOREG, the Austrian register for biological treatment in rheumatology: current practice of bDMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis in Austria

Background

The purpose of the present study was to check the validity of data collected in BIOREG, the Austrian register for biological treatment in rheumatology, and to elucidate eventual differences with respect to disease activity (DA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on established biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) before inclusion into the register (EST) and beginners at the time point of inclusion (NEW) after 1 year of treatment.

Methods

RA patients with a complete follow-up of 1 year in BIOREG were divided into EST and NEW and compared with respect to DA, remission rates, concomitant synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and glucocorticoid therapy (GC) at baseline and after 1-year follow-up. Safety concerns are listed. Descriptive statistics are applied.

Results

For 346 RA patients (284 EST, 62 NEW) out of 970 RA patients included into BIOREG, a full data set for a 1-year follow-up was available. No differences in DA were observed after 1 year as expressed by DAS28 or RADAI-5, and small differences as expressed by remission rates according to DAS28, RADAI-5 or Boolean criteria (namely approximately 1/2, 1/3 to 1/4 and 1/4 to 1/5 of the patients respectively). Sixty-four adverse events (AEs) were noted in 56 (20 %) of EST and 20 in 19 (31 %) of NEW patients. Malignancy occurred in four patients. After 1 year, 48 % of EST patients but only 16 % of NEW patients were on bDMARD monotherapy.

Conclusion

Regarding DA, the date collected in BIOREG appeared to be valid. After 1 year of bDMARD therapy, all patients, whether EST or NEW, achieved a similar level of DA. AEs occurred more frequently during the early phase of bDMARD treatment. Austrian rheumatologists initiate bDMARD therapy in patients with lower disease levels than in other European countries, leading to high remission rates.

Safety of biologic DMARDs in RA patients in real life: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses of biologic registers

OBJECTIVES

In daily practice, safety in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving biological treatment is an important issue. Unlike randomized controlled trials, biologic registers provide long-term real life safety data. To identify all biologic registers worldwide, to extract and analyze data regarding safety in RA patients under biologics.

METHOD

Systematic review was performed independently by 2 rheumatologists using PUBMED, COCHRANE Library and EMBASE databases, up to December 2014. Worldwide biologic registers and related publications were identified. Data on safety issues in RA patients were extracted for meta-analyses. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate risk ratios (RRs) of mortality, cardiovascular events, cancer, including lymphoma and melanoma and serious infections between (1) biological and non-biological DMARD (cDMARD), (2) between biologics when data were available.

RESULTS

Forty-three biological registers were identified worldwide and 27 publications were included for safety meta-analyses on anti-TNFs. Compared to cDMARD, mortality and cardiovascular events were significantly decreased in patients treated with anti-TNFs: RR=0.60 [95% CI 0.38-0.94] and RR=0.62 [0.44-0.88], respectively. Anti-TNFs did not increase the risk of solid cancer in patients without or with prior malignancy (RR=0.84 [0.60-1.18] and RR=0.77 [0.29-2.03], respectively), lymphoma (RR=0.90 [0.62-1.31]) and melanoma (RR=1.17 [0.86-1.59]). As expected, serious infections were significantly increased during anti-TNF treatment (RR=1.48 [1.18-1.85]) compared to cDMARD. No significant difference was found between soluble receptor to TNF and monoclonal antibodies (RR=0.55 [0.22-1.35]).

CONCLUSIONS

By reducing dramatically chronic inflammation in RA patients, anti-TNFs decrease mortality, cardiovascular events without increase significantly the risk of cancer, compared to cDMARDs.