Proposal to establish a register for the long term surveillance of adverse events in patients with rheumatic diseases exposed to biological agents: the EULAR Surveillance Register for Biological Compounds

Red Cell Distribution Width in Rheumatoid arthritis

Background:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune inflammatory disease, which affects the joints and other body systems. Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a part of the complete blood count (CBC) test and estimates erythrocytic variability.

Objective:

To evaluate RDW in RA and to assess the relationships of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with RDW.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 111 patients with RA diagnosed according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (2010 ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for Rheumatoid arthritis) and compared with 97 healthy individuals matched in age and gender as controls. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), clinical diseases activity index (CDAI) and diseases activity score 28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (DAS28-ESR), and diseases durations were recorded. Rheumatoid Factor (RF), anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA), complete blood count (CBC) and ESR were all measured.

Results:

The mean age for patients and controls were 46.53 ± 11.89 and 48.19 ± 12.06 years respectively (p=0.321). RDW was significantly higher in patients (14.5 ± 2.8%) compared with controls (12.4 ± 1.1 %) (p=>0.001). There was no significant correlation between various variables (age, Body Mass Index [BMI], disease duration, CDAI), DAS28-ESR, ESR, gender, RF, and ACPA) with RDW. The RDW had good ability to differentiate RA patients from controls (AUC=0.804, 95% CI=0.744 – 0.856. p=<0.001), while ESR had excellent ability to differentiate between RA patients and controls (AUC=0.926, 95% CI=0.882 – 0.958, p<0.001).

Conclusions:

RDW was significantly elevated in RA patients.

Biosimilar medicines and patient registries – expectations, limitations, and opportunities

Introduction: Biology therapies in a various medical specializations and for a broad spectrum of indications were launched during last two decades. As a new in class the therapies were obliged to provide additional data re gar ding efficacy and safety after their real medical practice integration. Patient registries, databases collecting various patient data, were introduced to grant data on the treatment effectiveness, safety, and long-term on treatment survival. Satisfactory treatment effect and acceptable safety profile were confirmed after couple of years of careful observation. However, the benefits were usually offered at much higher treatment costs compared to the standard therapies. Biologically similar drugs, so-called biosimilars (B.S), are being launched after original molecule patent protection expiry during recent years. They were expected as an ideal solution to avoid distinct impact on the medical budget: comparable effect for less money. The unsubstantiated doubts about biosimilar efficacy and safety were the reason of the late launch in many markets. Since biosimilars are considered as new therapy entities, the cautiousness to certain extent should be required. Information gained from post-marketing observations and patient registries over several years, confirmed the biosimilar product comparable quality. Healthcare budget savings could secure easier therapy access for more new patients.

Ten years of change in clinical disease status and treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: results based on standardized monitoring of patients in an ordinary outpatient clinic in southern Norway

Introduction

In the new millennium, clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have improved. Despite a large number of register data, there is a lack of data reflecting the entire outpatient RA population, and in particular long-term data. The main aim of this study was to explore changes in clinical disease status and treatment in an RA outpatient clinic population monitored with recommended outcome measures over a 10-year period.

Methods

Standard data collected included demographic data, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, clinical measures of disease activity (Disease Activity Score in 28 joint counts [DAS28], Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI], Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] and global assessments) and patient-reported outcomes (measures of physical function, joint pain, fatigue, patient global assessment and morning stiffness). Treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) was also recorded, as well as rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status.

Results

In the RA population, the mean age was approximately 64 years and disease duration was 10–12 years. About 70 % were females; approximately 20 % were current smokers; and 65–70 % were positive for RF and ACPA. During follow-up, disease activity improved significantly. When we applied the DAS28, CDAI, SDAI and Boolean criteria for remission, the proportions of patients in remission increased from 21.3 %, 8.1 %, 5.8 % and 3.8 %, respectively, in 2004 to 55.5 %, 31.7 %, 31.8 % and 17.7 %, respectively, in 2013. The proportions of patients with DAS28, CDAI and SDAI low disease activity status were 16.0 %, 34.0 %, and 34.9 %, respectively, in 2004 and 17.8 %, 50.4 % and 50.8 %, respectively, in 2013. A significant improvement in patient-reported outcome was seen only for the full 10-years, but not for the last 4 years, of the study period. The proportion of patients taking synthetic (about 60 %) and biologic (approximately 30 %) DMARDs was stable over the last 4 years of the study period, with no significant change observed, whereas the proportion of patients being treated with prednisolone was reduced significantly from 61 % in 2010 to 54 % in 2013.

Conclusions

The encouraging data we present suggest that the vast majority of patients with RA monitored in outpatient clinics in the new millennium can expect to achieve a status of clinical remission or low disease activity.

Bacterial and opportunistic infections during anti-TNF therapy

Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) plays a crucial role in host defence against bacterial infections. Summarizing the results, the findings of immunological and clinical research suggest a higher infection risk in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients receiving anti-TNF treatment. This is especially true for granulomatous infections in patients treated with the monoclonal TNF-alpha antibodies infliximab or adalimumab. Furthermore, patients treated with TNF inhibitors have a higher susceptibility to infections because of their higher active and more severe disease. Therefore, patients receiving anti-TNF treatment should be closely monitored for serious infections. A rapid and sufficient treatment of infections that are not mild and transient is recommended. There are atypical signs and symptoms as well as atypical pathogen that should be considered. Patients should be educated about how to avoid infectious complications.

Potential adverse events with biologic response modifiers

In recent years, an explosion of biologic response modifiers has entered the market to combat a variety of immune-mediated diseases. These can be in the form of recombinant cytokines, as in the case of interferon beta in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, or novel engineered antibodies constructed by combining non-human determinants with a human immunoglobulin scaffold, as in the case of omalizumab in the treatment of allergic asthma. More recently, completely human monoclonal antibodies have also been constructed. Adverse reactions related to these agents can be classified as expected or unexpected events. A number of case studies and a handful of randomized trials have demonstrated the potential toxicities with the use of biologic response modifiers. This article aims to review adverse event profiles of select biologic response modifiers for which the most data is available and are common to a rheumatology, allergy/immunology, and dermatology patient population.

Effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis in an observational cohort study: Comparison of patients according to their eligibility for major randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluate the efficacy of treatments in selected groups of patients defined by strict inclusion criteria. The value of these trials in predicting therapeutic effectiveness in "real world" patients is limited. This observational cohort study was designed to complement the knowledge obtained in RCTs by evaluating the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to their eligibility for the major trials.

METHODS

Using the data from the German biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT [in German]), we investigated how many of the RA patients who were treated with a TNF inhibitor (infliximab, etanercept, or adalimumab) would have been eligible for the major clinical trials that led to approval of the drugs. In addition, therapeutic effectiveness was compared in the eligible and ineligible patients using the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) and 50% (ACR50) improvement response criteria.

RESULTS

Only 21-33% of the patients in the RABBIT register would have been eligible for the major trials. In these patients, the ACR20 and ACR50 improvement responses, indicating therapeutic effectiveness, were comparable with the response rates in the published trials. ACR response rates were lower in those patients considered ineligible for the trials; however, absolute improvement was similar to that in eligible patients. Ineligible patients had lower baseline disease activity, more comorbidity, and lower functional status.

CONCLUSION

RCT cohorts reflect only a minor proportion of the patients treated with biologic agents in routine care. In the clinic setting, the indications for treatment with biologic agents are not identical to the inclusion criteria for trials. Despite the smaller relative improvement achieved in these patients with longstanding, severe RA who would not fulfill the inclusion criteria of a major trial, the majority of such patients would nevertheless benefit from biologic therapy.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic agents

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence rates of serious and nonserious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who start treatment with a biologic agent, and to compare these rates with those in patients with RA who receive conventional treatment.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the German biologics register between May 2001 and September 2003 were included. Treating rheumatologists assessed adverse events and serious adverse events. All adverse events and serious adverse events experienced within 12 months after study entry were analyzed. Propensity score methods were applied to estimate which part of a rate increase was likely to be attributable to differences in patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Data were available for 512 patients receiving etanercept, 346 patients receiving infliximab, 70 patients receiving anakinra, and 601 control patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The total number of adverse events per 100 patient-years was 22.6 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 18.7-27.2) among patients receiving etanercept, 28.3 (95% CI 23.1-34.7) among patients receiving infliximab, and 6.8 (95% CI 5.0-9.4) among controls (P < 0.0001). Significant differences in the rate of serious adverse events were also observed. For patients receiving etanercept, those receiving infliximab, and controls, the total numbers of serious adverse events per 100 patient-years were 6.4 (95% CI 4.5-9.1), 6.2 (95% CI 4.0-9.5), and 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-3.9), respectively (P = 0.0016). After adjusting for differences in the case patient mix, the relative risks of serious adverse events were 2.2 (95% CI 0.9-5.4) for patients receiving etanercept and 2.1 (95% CI 0.8-5.5) for patients receiving infliximab, compared with controls.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with biologic agents have a higher a priori risk of infection. However, our data suggest that this risk is increased by treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Etanercept: an updated review of its use in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept is a subcutaneously administered biological response modifier that binds and inactivates tumour necrosis factor-alpha, a proinflammatory cytokine. In patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly was associated with a more rapid improvement in disease activity and a significantly greater cumulative response than methotrexate over 12 months of treatment in a randomised, double-blind trial. In addition, etanercept recipients showed a slower rate of radiographic progression and a more rapid improvement in quality of life than methotrexate recipients. The efficacy of etanercept was maintained at 3 years' follow-up. Etanercept was also significantly better than placebo at reducing disease activity in patients who had an inadequate response to previous treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in several well controlled trials. At study end (after 3 or 6 months' treatment), the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response with etanercept (25mg or 16 mg/m(2) twice weekly) was 59 to 75% as monotherapy and 71% in combination with methotrexate; corresponding placebo response rates were 11 to 14% and 27%, respectively. Response has been maintained in patients who continued treatment for up to 5 years. In patients with psoriatic arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly significantly reduced disease activity and improved skin lesions in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12- to 24-week trials. In the 24-week study, ACR20 response rates (50 vs 13%), psoriatic arthritis response rates (70 vs 23%) and the median improvement in skin lesions (33 vs 0%) were significantly greater in etanercept than in placebo recipients. In patients with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept resulted in improvements in all measures of disease activity and was significantly more effective than placebo at reducing disease flare. Eighty percent of patients receiving etanercept achieved a >or=30% reduction in disease activity over 7 months of treatment, and this was maintained for up to 2 years in a trial extension. Etanercept was generally well tolerated in children and adults in clinical trials; the most commonly occurring adverse effects included injection site reactions, infection, headache, rhinitis and dizziness. In conclusion, etanercept has emerged as an important new treatment option in inflammatory arthritis. Etanercept provides rapid and sustained improvements in disease activity in patients with early and DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis and has been shown to inhibit radiographic progression in those with early disease. Well controlled studies have also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept in patients with psoriatic arthritis or polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

On the organization of an early arthritis clinic

Early active treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs has become standard management for patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. A number of questions, however, remain unresolved for practising clinicians, for example how early and how actively to treat and what the treatment goals should be. This chapter summarizes some recent data that have added important empirical evidence on these issues. It has thus been demonstrated that the formal organization of an early arthritis clinic shortens the referral time from primary care, that a delay in the institution of disease-modifying drug treatment leads to decreased long-term function and that early active treatment with pharmacotherapy as well as team-based care may increase occupational capacity. It is argued that adopting a day care approach in the initial encounter with specialist care may increase the possibility for patients actively to understand the disease and their own potentials to diminish and cope with its effects. The further development of care for early arthritis patients with new, potentially efficient but also expensive drugs will increase the requirement for a structured documentation of outcomes, systems for such documentation being discussed in the chapter.