Denosumab and incidence of type 2 diabetes among adults with osteoporosis: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates on reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes in adults with osteoporosis. DESIGN: Population based study involving emulation of a randomized target trial using electronic health records. SETTING: IQVIA Medical Research Data primary care database in the United Kingdom, 1995-2021. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 45 years or older who used denosumab or an oral bisphosphonate for osteoporosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incident type 2 diabetes, as defined by diagnostic codes. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, comparing denosumab with oral bisphosphonates using an as treated approach. RESULTS: 4301 new users of denosumab were matched on propensity score to 21 038 users of an oral bisphosphonate and followed for a mean of 2.2 years. The incidence rate of type 2 diabetes in denosumab users was 5.7 (95% confidence interval 4.3 to 7.3) per 1000 person years and in oral bisphosphonate users was 8.3 (7.4 to 9.2) per 1000 person years. Initiation of denosumab was associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.89). Participants with prediabetes appeared to benefit more from denosumab compared with an oral bisphosphonate (hazard ratio 0.54, 0.35 to 0.82), as did those with a body mass index ≥30 (0.65, 0.40 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this population based study, denosumab use was associated with a lower risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with oral bisphosphonate use in adults with osteoporosis. This study provides evidence at a population level that denosumab may have added benefits for glucose metabolism compared with oral bisphosphonates.

Using observational study data as an external control group for a clinical trial: an empirical comparison of methods to account for longitudinal missing data.

BACKGROUND: Observational data are increasingly being used to conduct external comparisons to clinical trials. In this study, we empirically examined whether different methodological approaches to longitudinal missing data affected study conclusions in this setting. METHODS: We used data from one clinical trial and one prospective observational study, both Norwegian multicenter studies including patients with recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and implementing similar treatment strategies, but with different stringency. A binary disease remission status was defined at 6, 12, and 24 months in both studies. After identifying patterns of longitudinal missing outcome data, we evaluated the following five approaches to handle missingness: analyses of patients with complete follow-up data, multiple imputation (MI), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and two combinations of MI and IPCW. RESULTS: We found a complex non-monotone missing data pattern in the observational study (N = 328), while missing data in the trial (N = 188) was monotone due to drop-out. In the observational study, only 39.0% of patients had complete outcome data, compared to 89.9% in the trial. All approaches to missing data indicated favorable outcomes of the treatment strategy in the trial and resulted in similar study conclusions. Variations in results across approaches were mainly due to variations in estimated outcomes for the observational data. CONCLUSIONS: Five different approaches to handle longitudinal missing data resulted in similar conclusions in our example. However, the extent and complexity of missing observational data affected estimated comparative outcomes across approaches, highlighting the need for careful consideration of methods to account for missingness in this setting. Based on this empirical examination, we recommend using a prespecified advanced missing data approach to account for longitudinal missing data, and to conduct alternative approaches in sensitivity analyses.

Achievement of remission in two early rheumatoid arthritis cohorts implementing different treat-to-target strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare achievement of remission in two early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treat-to-target (TTT) cohorts, one tight control cohort targeting stringent remission in a randomized controlled strategy trial and one observational cohort targeting a looser definition of remission in clinical practice. METHODS: We analyzed data from the ARCTIC trial and the NOR-VEAC observational study. Both were Norwegian multicenter studies including disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve RA-patients and implementing TTT. The target in ARCTIC was remission defined as a Disease Activity Score (DAS44) <1.6 plus 0 of 44 swollen joint count, while the target in NOR-VEAC was the less stringent remission of DAS28<2.6. We assessed achievement of the study-specific targets and compared achievement of the ACR/ EULAR Boolean remission during two years of follow-up. RESULTS: We included 189 patients from ARCTIC and 330 patients from NOR-VEAC. More than half in each cohort had reached the study-specific target at 6 months, increasing to more than 60% at 12 and 24 months. The odds of reaching ACR/EULAR Boolean remission during follow-up were higher in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC, with statistically significant differences at 3 months (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.03-2.89), 12 months (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.21-3.20) and 24 months (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.05 - 3.16). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients in both cohorts reached the study-specific treatment targets. More patients in ARCTIC than in NOR-VEAC achieved ACR/EULAR Boolean remission during follow-up, suggesting that targeting a more stringent definition of remission provide further potential for favorable outcomes of a TTT strategy.

Acute Calcium Pyrophosphate Crystal Arthritis Flare Rate and Risk Factors for Recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis flare rates and risk factors for recurrence. We characterized flares and determined the rate and predictors of acute CPP crystal arthritis flares in an academic medical center cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study among a random sample of patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis identified in the Partners HealthCare electronic medical record, 1991-2017. Flare was defined as self-limited, acute-onset synovitis with synovial fluid CPP crystals and/or chondrocalcinosis, not better explained by another cause. We calculated incidence rates (IR) for acute CPP crystal arthritis flare among all subjects and by sex. We estimated HR for recurrent flare using univariate Cox models that accounted for within-person correlated data. RESULTS: We identified 70 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis with a total of 111 flares. Recurrent flares occurred in 24% of patients; half of flares occurred in a previously unaffected joint. The acute CPP crystal arthritis flare rate was 11.4 per 100 person-years overall (95% CI 8.2-15.4), 14.2 in women (95% CI 9.6-0.1), and 7.1 in men (95% CI 3.4-13.0). Cancer (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.33-6.68) and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.10-7.76) were associated with a higher rate for recurrent flare. CONCLUSION: Recurrent flares occurred in about one-fourth of patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis and often occurred in previously unaffected joints. The acute CPP crystal arthritis flare rate was twice as high in women as in men.

Treat to target strategy in early rheumatoid arthritis versus routine care - A comparative clinical practice study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 2-year effect on disease activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of implementing a clinical practice treat-to-target (T2T) strategy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients in the Norwegian Very Early Arthritis Cohort 2.0 (NOR-VEAC 2.0), included 2010-2015, were treated according to T2T principles with visits at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 months, then every 6 months plus monthly visits until DAS28 <2.6. These patients were compared to a pre-T2T cohort of patients included in the Norwegian Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (NOR-DMARD) register 2006-2009. Both groups had a clinical diagnosis of RA (≤1 year) and were DMARD naïve. Disease activity and HRQoL outcomes were analysed, and the primary outcome was SDAI remission (≤3.3) at 2years. RESULTS: The T2T cohort included 293 patients (mean (SD) age 54 (13) years, 66% females, disease duration median (25,75 perc) 98 (57,164) days) and the routine care cohort 392 patients (age 54 (13) years, 68% females, 4 (0,30) days since diagnosis). At 2years, the proportion of patients achieving SDAI remission was 46% in the T2T cohort compared to 31% in the routine care cohort. EQ-5D was similar at baseline, but differed significantly between groups at 2years (median (25,75 perc) 0.77 (0.69, 0.85) vs 0.73 (0.59, 0.80), p < 0.001). Methotrexate monotherapy was the dominant DMARD regimen used to achieve SDAI remission in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Higher remission rates and better HRQoL were achieved in patients following a T2T strategy in clinical practice compared to routine care.

Predicting achievement of the treatment targets at 6 months from 3-month response levels in rheumatoid arthritis: data from real-life follow-up in the NOR-DMARD study.

OBJECTIVE: When initiating a new therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), current treatment recommendations suggest escalating therapy in case of poor clinical improvement by 3 months or if the treatment target has not been reached by 6 months. We investigated which disease activity improvement levels at 3 months predicted achievement of the treatment targets at 6 months in a real-life clinical setting. METHODS: We included 1610 patients with RA enrolled in the NOR-DMARD study between 2000 and 2012. Analyses were performed for the total group of patients and repeated for subgroups stratified by baseline disease activity, disease duration or treatment with methotrexate or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. We used a diagnostic test approach to explore the associations between 3-month response and 6-month outcome. RESULTS: Not achieving 50% improvement in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) by 3 months significantly decreased the likelihood of reaching remission at 6 months in all subgroups (negative likelihood ratios (LRs-) 0.15-0.36). Patients with high disease activity when initiating treatment were likely to fail reaching remission if they achieved less than SDAI 70% response by 3 months (LR- 0.25 and negative predictive value 0.98). Achieving a major response (SDAI 85%) at 3 months significantly increased the likelihood of reaching remission at 6 months (LRs+ 6.56). CONCLUSION: Levels of 3-month disease activity improvement can inform clinicians when deciding to continue or adjust ongoing therapy in a treat-to-target strategy aiming for remission or low disease activity within 6 months. The required levels of 3-month improvement varied with baseline disease activity.

Achievement of Remission and Low Disease Activity Definitions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice: Results from the NOR-DMARD Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of 6 definitions for remission and 4 definitions for low disease activity (LDA) after starting a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice, and to study whether predictors for achieving remission after 6 months are similar for these definitions. METHODS: Remission and LDA were calculated according to the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3), and both the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Boolean remission definitions 3 and 6 months after 4992 DMARD prescriptions for patients enrolled in the NOR-DMARD, a 5-center Norwegian register. Prediction of remission after 6 months was also studied. RESULTS: After 3 months, remission rates varied between definitions from 8.7% to 22.5% and for LDA from 35.5% to 42.7%, and increased slightly until 6 months of followup. DAS28 and RAPID3 gave the highest and ACR/EULAR, SDAI, and CDAI the lowest proportions for remission. Positive predictors for remission after 6 months were similar across the definitions and included lower age, male sex, short disease duration, high level of education, current nonsmoking, nonerosive disease, treatment with a biological DMARD, being DMARD-naive, good physical function, little fatigue, and LDA. CONCLUSION: In daily clinical practice, the DAS28 and RAPID3 definitions identified remission about twice as often as the ACR/EULAR Boolean, SDAI, and CDAI. Predictors of remission were similar across remission definitions. These findings provide additional evidence to follow treatment recommendations and treat RA early with a DMARD.