Including uncertainty of the expected mortality rates in the prediction of loss in life expectancy.

PURPOSE: This study introduces a novel method for estimating the variance of life expectancy since diagnosis (LEC) and loss in life expectancy (LLE) for cancer patients within a relative survival framework in situations where life tables based on the entire general population are not accessible. LEC and LLE are useful summary measures of survival in population-based cancer studies, but require information on the mortality in the general population. Our method addresses the challenge of incorporating the uncertainty of expected mortality rates when using a sample from the general population. METHODS: To illustrate the approach, we estimated LEC and LLE for patients diagnosed with colon and breast cancer in Sweden. General population mortality rates were based on a random sample drawn from comparators of a matched cohort. Flexible parametric survival models were used to model the mortality among cancer patients and the mortality in the random sample from the general population. Based on the models, LEC and LLE together with their variances were estimated. The results were compared with those obtained using fixed expected mortality rates. RESULTS: By accounting for the uncertainty of expected mortality rates, the proposed method ensures more accurate estimates of variances and, therefore, confidence intervals of LEC and LLE for cancer patients. This is particularly valuable for older patients and some cancer types, where underestimation of the variance can be substantial when the entire general population data are not accessible. CONCLUSION: The method can be implemented using existing software, making it accessible for use in various cancer studies. The provided example of Stata code further facilitates its adoption.

Are JAKis more effective among elderly patients with RA, smokers and those with higher cardiovascular risk? A comparative effectiveness study of b/tsDMARDs in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the relative effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis differ by the presence or absence of risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease, age, sex and smoking. METHODS: Through Swedish registers, we identified 13 493 individuals with 3166 JAKi, 5575 non-TNFi and 11 286 TNFi treatment initiations 2016-2022. All lines of therapy were included, with the majority in second line or higher. Treatment response was defined as the proportion reaching European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) good response and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission, respectively, within 6 months. Crude percentage point differences in these proportions (JAKis, and non-TNFis, vs TNFis) overall and by risk factors were observed, and adjusted for confounders using linear regression models. Predicted probabilities of response and remission were estimated from adjusted Poisson models, and presented across CV risk and age. RESULTS: Overall, adjusted percentage point differences indicated higher response (+5.0%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.9%) and remission (+5.8%, 95% CI 3.2% to 8.5%) with JAKis versus TNFis. The adjusted percentage point differences for response in those above 65, at elevated CV risk, and smokers were +5.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 9.0%), +8.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 11.4%) and +6.0% (95% CI 3.3% to 8.7%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for remission were +8.0% (95% CI 5.3% to 10.8%), +5.6% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.2%) and +7.6% (95% CI 5.5% to 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: As used in clinical practice, response and remission at 6 months with JAKis are higher than with TNFi. Among patients with risk factors of concern, effectiveness is similar or numerically further increased. For individualised benefit-to-risk ratios to guide treatment choice, safety and effectiveness in specific patient segments should be considered.

Comparative cardiovascular safety with janus kinase inhibitors and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as used in clinical practice: an observational cohort study from Sweden in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), in clinical practice, and to contextualise these findings by comparing to the Swedish RA population and general population at large. METHODS: Patients with RA initiating JAKi, TNFi and non-TNFi bDMARDs were identified in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register between 2016 and 2021. Through linkages to national registers, a cohort of patients with RA, general population comparators, as well as covariates and incident major acute CV event (MACE, including myocardial infarction, stroke and fatal CV events) were identified until 2022. Crude and age-sex standardised rates were calculated and HRs estimated from multivariable Cox regression models using TNFi as reference. RESULTS: We identified 13 492 patients with RA initiating a JAKi, non-TNFi bDMARD or TNFi treatment. Among 3037 JAKi-initiators, 59 MACE events were observed. The age-sex standardised rates for MACE were similar in the JAKi (0.88 per 100 person years) and TNFi (0.91) cohorts. Fully adjusted models showed no increased rate of MACE with JAKi (HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99), or non-TNFi bDMARD (HR=0.98; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23) in comparison to TNFi. We found no evidence that this HR changed over time since treatment initiation. In a CV-enriched subset, we observed higher rates but similar HRs. CONCLUSIONS: As used in present clinical practice in Sweden, we found no evidence that CV risk is higher with JAKis than TNFis in RA.

Cancer risks with JAKi and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis: a national real-world cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess cancer risks with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) versus biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in clinical practice. METHODS: Cohort study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating treatment with JAKi, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other (non-TNFi) bDMARDs 2016-2020 using prospectively collected data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register linked to other registers including the Cancer Register. We estimated incidence rates, and HRs via Cox regression, for all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and for individual cancer types including NMSC. RESULTS: We identified 10 447 patients with RA and 4443 patients with PsA who initiated treatment with JAKi, a non-TNFi bDMARD or a TNFi. Median follow-up times in RA were 1.95, 2.83 and 2.49 years, respectively. In RA, based on 38 incident cancers other than NMSC with JAKi vs 213 with TNFi the overall HR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.38). Based on 59 vs 189 incident NMSC, the HR was 1.39 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.91). At 2 or more years since treatment start, the HR for NMSC was 2.12 (95% CI 1.15 to 3.89). In PsA, based on 5 vs 73 incident cancers other than NMSC, and 8 vs 73 incident NMSC, the corresponding HRs were 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.2) and 2.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 5.3). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, the short-term risk of cancer other than NMSC in individuals initiating treatment with JAKi is not higher than for TNFi, but we found evidence of increased risk for NMSC.

Safety of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis as used in clinical practice: results from the ARTIS programme.

OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal clinical registry-infrastructures such as Anti-Rheumatic Therapies in Sweden (ARTIS) allow simultaneous comparison of the safety of individual immunomodulatory drugs used in clinical practice, with consistent definitions of treatment cohorts, follow-up and outcomes. Our objective was to assess and compare incidence rates of key safety outcomes for individual targeted synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), updating previous reports and including newer treatments including Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi). METHODS: Nationwide register-based cohort study including all patients with RA in Sweden registered as starting any b/tsDMARD 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2020, followed until 30 June 2021 (N=20 117). The incidence rates of selected outcomes, identified through national healthcare registers, were compared between individual b/tsDMARDs, adjusted for confounding by demographics, RA disease characteristics and comorbidity. RESULTS: There were marked differences in treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (rates per 1000 person-years ranged from 18 on rituximab to 57 on tofacitinib), but few significant differences were observed for the serious adverse events under study. Neither cardiovascular events nor general serious infections were more frequent on baricitinib or tofacitinib versus bDMARDs, but JAKi were associated with higher rates of hospital-treated herpes zoster (HR vs etanercept, 3.82 (95% CI 2.05 to 7.09) and 4.00 (1.59 to 10.06)). Low number of events limited some comparisons, in particular for sarilumab and tofacitinib. CONCLUSION: Data from ARTIS supports that the b/tsDMARDs currently used to treat RA have acceptable and largely similar safety profiles, but differences exist in particular concerning tolerability and specific infection risks.

Evaluation of VTE, MACE, and Serious Infections Among Patients with RA Treated with Baricitinib Compared to TNFi: A Multi-Database Study of Patients in Routine Care Using Disease Registries and Claims Databases.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to evaluate baricitinib safety with respect to venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and serious infection relative to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with RA from 14 real-world data sources (three disease registries, eight commercial and three government health insurance claims databases) in the United States (n = 9), Europe (n = 3), and Japan (n = 2) were analyzed using a new user active comparator design. Propensity score matching (1:1) controlled for potential confounding. Meta-analysis of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) for each outcome, from each data source was executed using modified Poisson regression and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis. RESULTS: Of 9013 eligible baricitinib-treated patients, 7606 were propensity score-matched with TNFi-treated patients, contributing 5879 and 6512 person-years of baricitinib and TNFi exposure, respectively. Across data sources, 97 patients (56 baricitinib) experienced VTE during follow-up, 93 experienced MACE (54 baricitinib), and 321 experienced serious infection (176 baricitinib). Overall IRRs comparing baricitinib with TNFi treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.10, 2.08) for VTE, 1.54 (95% CI 0.93, 2.54) for MACE, and 1.36 (95% CI 0.86, 2.13) for serious infection. IRDs for VTE, MACE, and serious infection, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI -0.04, 0.57), 0.22 (95% CI -0.07, 0.52), and 0.57 (95% CI -0.07, 1.21) per 100 person-years greater for baricitinib than TNFi. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results suggest increased risk of VTE with baricitinib versus TNFi, with consistent point estimates from the two largest data sources. A numerically greater risk was observed for MACE and serious infection when comparing baricitinib versus TNFi, with different point estimates from the two largest data sources. Findings from this study and their impact on clinical practice should be considered in context of limitations and other evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of baricitinib and other Janus kinase inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU PAS Register ( http://encepp.eu ), identifier #32271.

Venous thromboembolism with JAK inhibitors and other immune-modulatory drugs: a Swedish comparative safety study among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). For contextualisation, to assess VTE incidences in the Swedish general population and in the RA source population. METHODS: We performed a nationwide register-based, active comparator, new user design cohort study in Sweden from 2010 to 2021. The Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register was linked to national health registers to identify treatment cohorts (exposure) of initiators of a JAKi, a TNFi, or a non-TNFi bDMARD (n=32 737 treatment initiations). We also identified a general population cohort (matched 1:5, n=92 108), and an 'overall RA' comparator cohort (n=85 722). Outcome was time to first VTE during the follow-up, overall and by deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). We calculated incidence rates (IR) and multivariable-adjusted HRs using Cox regression. RESULTS: Based on 559 incident VTE events, the age- and sex-standardised (to TNFi) IR (95% CI) for VTE was 5.15 per 1000 person-years (4.58 to 5.78) for patients treated with TNFi, 11.33 (8.54 to 15.04) for patients treated with JAKi, 5.86 (5.69 to 6.04) in the overall RA cohort and 3.28 (3.14 to 3.43) in the general population. The fully adjusted HR (95% CI) for VTE with JAKi versus TNFi was 1.73 (1.24 to 2.42), the corresponding HR for PE was 3.21 (2.11 to 4.88) and 0.83 (0.47 to 1.45) for DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA treated with JAKi in clinical practice are at increased risk of VTE compared with those treated with bDMARDs, an increase numerically confined to PE.

Modelling multiple time-scales with flexible parametric survival models.

BACKGROUND: There are situations when we need to model multiple time-scales in survival analysis. A usual approach in this setting would involve fitting Cox or Poisson models to a time-split dataset. However, this leads to large datasets and can be computationally intensive when model fitting, especially if interest lies in displaying how the estimated hazard rate or survival change along multiple time-scales continuously. METHODS: We propose to use flexible parametric survival models on the log hazard scale as an alternative method when modelling data with multiple time-scales. By choosing one of the time-scales as reference, and rewriting other time-scales as a function of this reference time-scale, users can avoid time-splitting of the data. RESULT: Through case-studies we demonstrate the usefulness of this method and provide examples of graphical representations of estimated hazard rates and survival proportions. The model gives nearly identical results to using a Poisson model, without requiring time-splitting. CONCLUSION: Flexible parametric survival models are a powerful tool for modelling multiple time-scales. This method does not require splitting the data into small time-intervals, and therefore saves time, helps avoid technological limitations and reduces room for error.

COVID-19 clinical outcomes and DMT of MS patients and population-based controls.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate risks for all-cause mortality and for severe COVID-19 in multiple sclerosis patients and across relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients exposed to disease-modifying therapies. METHODS: We conducted a Swedish nationwide population-based multi-register linkage cohort study and followed all multiple sclerosis patients (n = 17,692 in March 2020), individually age-, sex-, and region-matched to five population-based controls (n = 86,176 in March 2020) during March 2020-June 2021. We compared annual all-cause mortality within and across cohorts, and assessed incidence rates and relative risks for hospitalization, intensive care admission, and death due to COVID-19 in relation to disease-modifying therapy use, using Cox regression. RESULTS: Absolute all-cause mortality among multiple sclerosis patients was higher from March to December 2020 than in previous years, but relative risks versus the population-based controls were similar to preceding years. Incidence rates of hospitalization, intensive care admission, and death due to COVID-19 remained in line with those for all-cause hospitalization, intensive care admission, and mortality. Among relapsing-remitting patients on rituximab, trends for differences in risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 remained in the demographics-, socioeconomic status-, comorbidity-, and multiple sclerosis severity-adjusted model. INTERPRETATION: Risks of severe COVID-19-related outcomes were increased among multiple sclerosis patients as a whole compared to population controls, but risk increases were also seen for non-COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care admission, and mortality, and did not significantly differ during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic years. The risk conveyed by disease-modifying therapies was smaller than previously assumed, likely as a consequence of the possibility to better control for confounders.

Assessing the impact of including variation in general population mortality on standard errors of relative survival and loss in life expectancy.

BACKGROUND: A relative survival approach is often used in population-based cancer studies, where other cause (or expected) mortality is assumed to be the same as the mortality in the general population, given a specific covariate pattern. The population mortality is assumed to be known (fixed), i.e. measured without uncertainty. This could have implications for the estimated standard errors (SE) of any measures obtained within a relative survival framework, such as relative survival (RS) ratios and the loss in life expectancy (LLE). We evaluated the existing approach to estimate SE of RS and the LLE in comparison to if uncertainty in the population mortality was taken into account. METHODS: The uncertainty from the population mortality was incorporated using parametric bootstrap approach. The analysis was performed with different levels of stratification and sizes of the general population used for creating expected mortality rates. Using these expected mortality rates, SEs of 5-year RS and the LLE for colon cancer patients in Sweden were estimated. RESULTS: Ignoring uncertainty in the general population mortality rates had negligible (less than 1%) impact on the SEs of 5-year RS and LLE, when the expected mortality rates were based on the whole general population, i.e. all people living in a country or region. However, the smaller population used for creating the expected mortality rates, the larger impact. For a general population reduced to 0.05% of the original size and stratified by age, sex, year and region, the relative precision for 5-year RS was 41% for males diagnosed at age 85. For the LLE the impact was more substantial with a relative precision of 1286%. The relative precision for marginal estimates of 5-year RS was 3% and 30% and for the LLE 22% and 313% when the general population was reduced to 0.5% and 0.05% of the original size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When the general population mortality rates are based on the whole population, the uncertainty in the estimates of the expected measures can be ignored. However, when based on a smaller population, this uncertainty should be taken into account, otherwise SEs may be too small, particularly for marginal values, and, therefore, confidence intervals too narrow.

Short- and longer-term cancer risks with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as used against rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the occurrence and relative risks of first-ever-incident non-cutaneous cancer overall and for 16 sites in patients with RA treated with biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs), by time since treatment start, attained age, and duration of active treatment. METHODS: This is an observational nationwide and population-based cohort study of patients with RA (n = 69 308), treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi; adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or other b/tsDMARDs (abatacept, rituximab, baricitinib, tofacitinib and tocilizumab) compared with RA patients not treated with b/tsDMARDs, and matched general population referents (n = 109 532), 2001-2018. The study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register and from other registers, linked to the national Swedish Cancer Register. Incidence rates and hazard ratios were estimated via Cox regression adjusted for co-morbidities and other health characteristics. RESULTS: Based on 8633 incident cancers among RA patients, the overall relative risk of cancer with TNFi [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.0] was neither increased nor did it change with time since treatment start, duration of active treatment, or attained age, when compared with b/tsDMARD-naïve RA. For other b/tsDMARDs, we noted no consistent signal of increased overall risks (HRs ranged from 1.0 to 1.2), but there were statistically significant estimates above 1 for abatacept with 2-5 years of active treatment, for older age groups, and between several of the bDMARDs and urinary tract cancer. CONCLUSION: TNFis, as used long term in clinical practice against RA, are not linked to increased risks for cancer overall. For other b/tsDMARDs, and for site-specific risks, our results are generally reassuring but contain signals that call for replication.

Influenza outcomes in patients with inflammatory joint diseases and DMARDs: how do they compare to those of COVID-19?

OBJECTIVES: To estimate absolute and relative risks for seasonal influenza outcomes in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). To contextualise recent findings on corresponding COVID-19 risks. METHODS: Using Swedish nationwide registers for this cohort study, we followed 116 989 patients with IJD and matched population comparators across four influenza seasons (2015-2019). We quantified absolute risks of hospitalisation and death due to influenza, and compared IJD to comparators via Cox regression. We identified 71 556 patients with IJD on active treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARDs) at the start of each influenza season, estimated risks for the same outcomes and compared these risks across DMARDs via Cox regression. RESULTS: Per season, average risks for hospitalisation listing influenza were 0.25% in IJD and 0.1% in the general population, corresponding to a crude HR of 2.38 (95% CI 2.21 to 2.56) that decreased to 1.44 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.56) following adjustments for comorbidities. For death listing influenza, the corresponding numbers were 0.015% and 0.006% (HR=2.63, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.58, and HR=1.46, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.01). Absolute risks for influenza outcomes were half (hospitalisation) and one-tenth (death) of those for COVID-19, but relative estimates comparing IJD to the general population were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In absolute terms, COVID-19 in IJD outnumbers that of average seasonal influenza, but IJD entails a 50%-100% increase in risk for hospitalisation and death for both types of infections, which is largely dependent on associated comorbidities. Overall, bDMARDs/tsDMARDs do not seem to confer additional risk for hospitalisation or death related to seasonal influenza.

Comparison of treatment retention of originator vs biosimilar products in clinical rheumatology practice in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment retention between biosimilars and their originator products among first starters (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab and rituximab), as well as after non-medical switch. METHODS: Patients with rheumatic diseases starting, for the first time, an originator or biosimilar etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab or rituximab were identified in the national Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. Moreover, patients switching from an originator to its biosimilar were identified and individually matched to patients continuing on the originator. One-year treatment retention was calculated and hazard ratios (HR) for discontinuation with 95% CIs were estimated, adjusting for comorbidities and socio-economic factors. RESULTS: In total, 21 443 first treatment courses were identified. The proportion of patients still on the drug at 1 year and the HR for discontinuation revealed no differences across adalimumab (Humira, Imraldi, Amgevita and Hyrimoz) nor across rituximab products (Mabthera, Ritemvia/Truxima and Rixathon). The proportions on the drug at 1 year were similar for Benepali (77%) and Enbrel (75%) and the adjusted HR for Benepali compared with Enbrel was 0.91 (95% CI 0.83, 0.99). For infliximab, the proportion still on the drug at 1 year was 67% for Remicade and 66% for Remsima/Inflectra and the HR compared with Remicade was 1.16 (95% CI 1.02, 1.33). Among 2925 patients switching from an originator drug to one of its biosimilars, we noted no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in drug survival compared with those who remained on originator therapy. CONCLUSION: This large observational study supports the equivalence of biologic DMARD biosimilar products and originators when used in routine rheumatology care.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with inflammatory joint diseases in Sweden: from infection severity to impact on care provision.

OBJECTIVES: To compare risks for COVID-19-related outcomes in inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and across disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) during the first two waves of the pandemic and to assess effects of the pandemic on rheumatology care provision. METHODS: Through nationwide multiregister linkages and cohort study design, we defined IJD and DMARD use annually in 2015-2020. We assessed absolute and relative risks of hospitalisation or death listing COVID-19. We also assessed the incidence of IJD and among individuals with IJD, rheumatologist visits, DMARD use and incidence of selected comorbidities. RESULTS: Based on 115 317 patients with IJD in 2020, crude risks of hospitalisation and death listing COVID-19 (0.94% and 0.33% across both waves, respectively) were similar during both waves (adjusted HR versus the general population 1.33, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.43, for hospitalisation listing COVID-19; 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40 for death listing COVID-19). Overall, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) did not increase risks of COVID-19 related hospitalisation (with the exception of a potential signal for JAK inhibitors) or death. During the pandemic, decreases were observed for IJD incidence (-7%), visits to rheumatology units (-16%), DMARD dispensations (+6.5% for bDMARD/tsDMARDs and -8.5% for conventional synthetic DMARDs compared with previous years) and for new comorbid conditions, but several of these changes were part of underlying secular trends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IJD are at increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, which may partially be explained by medical conditions other than IJD per se. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has exerted measurable effects on aspects of rheumatology care provision demonstrated, the future impact of which will need to be assessed.

Frailty trajectories in three longitudinal studies of aging: Is the level or the rate of change more predictive of mortality?

BACKGROUND: frailty shows an upward trajectory with age, and higher levels increase the risk of mortality. However, it is less known whether the shape of frailty trajectories differs by age at death or whether the rate of change in frailty is associated with mortality. OBJECTIVES: to assess population frailty trajectories by age at death and to analyse whether the current level of the frailty index (FI) i.e. the most recent measurement or the person-specific rate of change is more predictive of mortality. METHODS: 3,689 individuals from three population-based cohorts with up to 15 repeated measurements of the Rockwood frailty index were analysed. The FI trajectories were assessed by stratifying the sample into four age-at-death groups: <70, 70-80, 80-90 and >90 years. Generalised survival models were used in the survival analysis. RESULTS: the FI trajectories by age at death showed that those who died at <70 years had a steadily increasing trajectory throughout the 40 years before death, whereas those who died at the oldest ages only accrued deficits from age ~75 onwards. Higher level of FI was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.47-1.91), whereas the rate of change was no longer significant after accounting for the current FI level. The effect of the FI level did not weaken with time elapsed since the last measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty trajectories differ as a function of age-at-death category. The current level of FI is a stronger marker for risk stratification than the rate of change.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality in patients with inflammatory joint diseases and in the general population: a nationwide Swedish cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate absolute and relative risks for all-cause mortality and for severe COVID-19 in inflammatory joint diseases (IJDs) and with antirheumatic therapies. METHODS: Through Swedish nationwide multiregister linkages, we selected all adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=53 455 in March 2020), other IJDs (here: spondyloarthropathies, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, n=57 112), their antirheumatic drug use, and individually matched population referents. We compared annual all-cause mortality March-September 2015 through 2020 within and across cohorts, and assessed absolute and relative risks for hospitalisation, admission to intensive care and death due to COVID-19 March-September 2020, using Cox regression. RESULTS: During March-September 2020, the absolute all-cause mortality in RA and in other IJDs was higher than 2015-2019, but relative risks versus the general population (around 2 and 1.5) remained similar during 2020 compared with 2015-2019. Among patients with IJD, the risks of hospitalisation (0.5% vs 0.3% in their population referents), admission to intensive care (0.04% vs 0.03%) and death (0.10% vs 0.07%) due to COVID-19 were low. Antirheumatic drugs were not associated with increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, although for certain drugs, precision was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of severe COVID-19-related outcomes were increased among patients with IJDs, but risk increases were also seen for non-COVID-19 morbidity. Overall absolute and excess risks are low and the level of risk increases are largely proportionate to those in the general population, and explained by comorbidities. With possible exceptions, antirheumatic drugs do not have a major impact on these risks.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in rheumatoid arthritis, and its association with disease activity: a nationwide cohort study from Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) relative to individuals without RA, and to investigate the relationship between aspects of clinical disease activity in RA and the risk of VTE. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study 2006 through 2018 using the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register linked to other national patient registers to identify all patients with RA with at least one registered rheumatologist visit during the study period (n=46 316 patients, 322 601 visits). The Disease Activity Score 28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (DAS28 ESR) and its components served as the exposure, and a VTE event within the year following the visit was the main outcome. We also included general population referents (1:5) matched on age, sex and residential area. RESULTS: Based on 2241 incident VTE events within 1 year of each included visit, and 5301 VTE events in the general population cohort, the risk ratio for VTE in RA was 1.88 (95% CI 1.65 to 2.15). Among patients with RA, the risk (and risk ratio) increased with increasing RA disease activity, from 0.52% following visits in remission to 1.08% following visits with DAS28 ESR high disease activity, RR compared with remission=2.03, 95% CI 1.73 to 2.38. Compared with the general population, also patients with RA in DAS28 ESR remission were at elevated VTE risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a strong association between clinical RA disease activity measured by DAS28 ESR and the risk of VTE. RA disease activity can be used as an additional tool for VTE risk stratification in patients with RA.

Contemporary management of anaemia, erythropoietin resistance and cardiovascular risk in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) anaemia remains controversial and few studies have evaluated real-world management of anaemia in advanced CKD in the context of guideline recommendations. METHODS: We performed an observational study from the Swedish Renal Registry evaluating the epidemiology and treatment patterns of anaemia across Stages 3b-5 in non-dialysis (ND) and dialysis-dependent (DD) CKD patients during 2015. Logistic regression and Cox models explored the associations between anaemia treatments, inflammation, erythropoietin resistance index (ERI) and subsequent 1-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). RESULTS: Data from 14 415 (ND, 11 370; DD, 3045) patients were included. Anaemia occurred in 60% of ND and 93% of DD patients. DD patients used more erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs; 82% versus 24%) and iron (62% versus 21%) than ND patients. All weekly ESA doses were converted to a weight-adjusted weekly epoetin equivalent dose. The prescribed ESA doses were low to moderate [median 48.2 IU/kg/week (ND), 78.6 IU/kg/week (DD)]. Among ESA-treated patients, 6-21% had haemoglobin (Hb) >13 g/dL and 2-6% had Hb <9 g/dL. Inflammation (C-reactive protein >5 mg/L) was highly prevalent and associated with ERI and higher ESA doses. Higher (>88 IU/kg/week) versus lower (<44 IU/kg/week) ESA doses were associated with a higher risk of MACEs [{ND hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.86]; DD HR 1.60 [95% CI 1.24-2.06]}. There was no association between iron use and inflammation or MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia remains highly prevalent in advanced CKD. Patients with anaemia received moderate ESA doses with a relatively low prevalence of iron use. Higher doses of ESA were associated with inflammation and a higher risk of MACE.

Asthma and all-cause mortality in children and young adults: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest an increased all-cause mortality among adults with asthma. We aimed to study the relationship between asthma in children and young adults and all-cause mortality, and investigate differences in mortality rate by also having a life-limiting condition (LLC) or by parental socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: Included in this register-based study are 2 775 430 individuals born in Sweden between January 1986 and December 2012. We identified asthma cases using the National Patient Register (NPR) and the Prescribed Drug Register. Those with LLC were identified using the NPR. Parental SES at birth (income and education) was retrieved from Statistics Sweden. We estimated the association between asthma and all-cause mortality using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Effect modification by LLC or parental SES was studied using interaction terms in the adjusted model. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard rate (adjHR) for all-cause mortality in asthma cases versus non-asthma cases was 1.46 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.62). The highest increased rate appeared to be for those aged 5-15 years. In persons with asthma and without LLC, the adjHR remained increased at 1.33 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.50), but differed (p=0.002) from those with asthma and LLC, with an adjHR of 1.87 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.22). Parental SES did not alter the association (income, p=0.55; education, p=0.83). CONCLUSION: This study shows that asthma is associated with an increased mortality in children and young adults regardless of LLC or parental SES. Further research is warranted to investigate the possible mechanisms for this association.

Impact of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy on sick leave in women with early-stage breast cancer during a 5-year period: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: To examine the influence of type of oncological treatment on sick leave in women of working age with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: We identified 8870 women aged 30-64 diagnosed with stage I-II breast cancer between 2005 and 2012 in the Breast Cancer Data Base Sweden. Associations between type of oncological treatment (radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, and chemotherapy) and sick leave were estimated by hazard ratios, probabilities, and length of sick leave using multi-state survival analysis. RESULTS: During the first 5 years after diagnosis, women aged 50-54 years at diagnosis receiving chemotherapy spent on average 182 (95% CI 151-218) additional days on sick leave compared with women not receiving chemotherapy, but with otherwise similar characteristics. Correspondingly, women initiating endocrine therapy spent 30 (95% CI 18-44) additional days on sick leave and women receiving post-mastectomy radiotherapy 53 (95% CI 37-69) additional days. At year five, the rate of sick leave was increased in women who had received chemotherapy (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.28) or endocrine therapy (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26). Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were associated with increased rates of sick leave due to depression or anxiety. CONCLUSION: Our findings of increased long-term risks of sick leave after oncological treatment for breast cancer warrant attention from caregivers taking part in cancer rehabilitation. In light of the ongoing debate about overtreatment of early-stage breast cancer, our findings point to the importance of properly selecting patients for chemotherapy not only for the medical toxicity but also the possible impact on their livelihood.