Evaluation of the nocebo effect after switching from etanercept or adalimumab originator to a biosimilar: a retrospective study of patients with inflammatory rheumatism.

OBJECTIVES: Despite significant savings with biosimilars, their negative perception can lead to the occurrence of a nocebo effect (NE), therefore we aimed to quantify the NE in inflammatory rheumatism after switching from adalimumab or etanercept originators to biosimilars. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in 4 hospitals in Normandy, France between January 2018 and July 2022. The study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis in remission under adalimumab or etanercept originators before switching to biosimilars. The occurrence of a NE was considered in patients who did not maintain biosimilars at 12 months and who presented a subjective adverse event (AE). A comparative analysis of the quantitative data collected before and after switching was performed. The AE that led to biosimilar discontinuation was identified. Additional analyses were performed to identify potential risk factors for the occurrence of a NE. RESULTS: Among 183 patients included,13.1% presented a NE. Objective AEs were observed, including rheumatism reactivation (15.3%), intolerance (8.2%), infection (1.6%) and allergic reactions (0.5%). Morning stiffness duration was significantly different before and after the switch in the spondyloarthritis group (p=0.01). No risk factors were associated with the occurrence of a NE within the limits of the studied parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of a NE after switching to a biosimilar remains acceptable. It appears less frequent when the switch is supervised by the practitioner rather than being systematic (up to 33% in some countries). A shared medical decision seems to be essential in a subset of patients, which remains to be defined.

How to treat chronic pain in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) - A pharmacological review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a common symptom of rheumatic diseases that impacts patients' quality of life. While non-pharmacological approaches are often recommended as first-line treatments, pharmacological interventions are important for pain management. However, the effectiveness and safety of different pharmacological treatments for chronic pain in rheumatic diseases are unclear. METHODS: This review critically synthesizes the current evidence base to guide clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacological treatments for their patients, considering the expected benefits and potential risks and side effects. RESULTS: For osteoarthritis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids, and antidepressants are commonly used, with NSAIDs being the most recommended. In addition, topical agents, such as topical NSAIDs, are recommended for localized pain relief. For fibromyalgia, amitriptyline, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and gabapentinoids are commonly used, with SNRIs being the most recommended. For back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, opioids are used only for acute of flare-up pain, whereas neuropathic pain drugs are only used for chronic radicular pain. For inflammatory rheumatic diseases, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biological agents are recommended to slow disease progression and manage symptoms. CONCLUSION: While DMARDs and biological agents are recommended for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, pharmacological treatments for other rheumatic diseases only alleviate symptoms and do not provide a cure for the underlying condition. The use of pharmacological treatments should be based on the expected benefits and evaluation of side effects, with non-pharmacological modalities also being considered, especially for fibromyalgia.

On difficulties to define prognostic factors for clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis.

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the identification of prognostic factors (PF) capable of predicting disease outcome, response to treatment or success of dose reduction is an important issue, as these factors are intended to serve as a basis for decision-making. The task is complex from the outset, as the definition of disease prognosis or therapeutic prognosis is not uniquevocal. The heterogeneity of the definitions used partly explains the failure to identify PF that can be applied at an individual level. But other factors also contribute. First, the scope of the disease studied is too broad, including nosologically different entities. Second, potential PF are only measured at a single point of time, whereas changes over a period of time should be taken into account to a greater extent, not forgetting the potential impact of the treatment received during this period. Beyond these limiting factors, one of the main obstacles to the identification of PF is probably the fact that the phase of the disease is not sufficiently taken into account. Predicting the disease outcome when it is well established is a more complex challenge than when it is just beginning, as many factors are likely to interfere. The same applies to therapeutic PF, which should be determined according to disease duration. Difficulties also arise from the approaches used, which are often restricted to a single field of interest whereas they should be much more integrative and call on new large-scale data analysis tools with a view to precision medicine.In RA, prognosis can be defined at two levels: disease outcome, including joint damage and risk of extra-articular manifestations and/or complications, and treatment outcome, including response to therapy, risk of adverse effects and drug-free remission.

Determinants associated with the prescription of a first biologic therapy in patients with axial spondyloarthritis and concomitant fibromyalgia in daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus on the therapeutic strategy of rheumatologists for patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and concomitant fibromyalgia (FM). The main aim of this study was to identify, in a population of rheumatologists practicing in Normandy, France, the determinants associated with their decision to prescribe a first biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with Spa/FM. Specific objectives were to evaluate professional prescribing practices to identify a set of criteria likely to contribute to the therapeutic decision of rheumatologists, and to validate the relevance of these criteria. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional survey-based study using a mixed (qualitative and quantitative) method. The quantitative approach was web-based and conducted among rheumatologists in Normandy. RESULTS: The qualitative study allowed us to identify a set of criteria likely to contribute to the therapeutic decision of rheumatologists. In the quantitative study, 54/113 rheumatologists filled the questionnaire. Four criteria were considered by all respondents to contribute to their decision to prescribe a first bDMARD: arthritis on physical examination, extra-articular manifestations, systemic inflammation and structural damage on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The determinants associated with the decision of rheumatologists to prescribe a first bDMARD in patients with SpA/FM were mostly objective, in line with the recommendations in the literature. Most criteria were more related to an approach aimed at ensuring the diagnosis of SpA than evaluating its activity or severity.

Impact of the Clinical Pharmacist in Rheumatology Practice: A Systematic Review.

This is a systematic literature review on the impact of pharmacists in rheumatology, conducted using the PubMed®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Library®, and Web of science® databases and using the PRISMA 2020 checklist. This review was conducted from 2000 to June 2024. A quality analysis was performed. The selection of articles, as well as all analyses, including quality analyses, were conducted by a pair of pharmacists with experience in rheumatology, and included 24 articles. This study highlights the growth of clinical pharmacy activities in rheumatology and the positive influence of clinical pharmacists on patient care. The implementation of such initiatives has the potential to improve medication adherence, reduce medication-related risks, and optimize associated healthcare costs. All these pharmaceutical interventions aim to make the patient care journey smoother and safer. Additionally, the diversity of available pharmaceutical services caters to the varied needs of rheumatology. Furthermore, outpatient clinical pharmacy is also explored in this field and garners interest from patients. The vast majority of studies demonstrate significant improvement in patient care with promising performance outcomes when pharmacists are involved. This review highlights the diverse range of interventions by clinical pharmacists in rheumatology, which is very promising. However, to better assess the benefits of clinical pharmacists, this activity needs further development and evaluation through controlled and randomized clinical research programs.

An Overview of Opioid Prescription Patterns among Non-Opioid Users Following Emergency Department Admission.

The evolving landscape of opioid prescription practices necessitates a comprehensive understanding of emerging patterns, particularly among new opioid users discharged from emergency departments. This study delves into the intricate realm of opioid utilization by elucidating the prevalence of their prescriptions. A retrospective analysis of electronic health records was conducted, including a cohort of 71 patients who received opioid prescriptions upon discharge from emergency departments from 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022. Demographic characteristics and prescription details were systematically examined. This study illuminates tramadol's prominence, with 84% of prescriptions and a Defined Daily Dose (DDD) morphine equivalent of 60 mg, as the primary choice as a new opioid, a finding that draws attention due to the closely aligned dosages with morphine equivalents. This discovery prompts a critical reassessment of tramadol's therapeutic role, considering its multifaceted nature encompassing serotonergic effects and heightened fall risks. This study advocates for a nuanced and vigilant approach to tramadol prescription, cognizant of its potential risks and therapeutic implications, and highlights the imperative of optimizing data quality and traceability within electronic health records to enhance patient care and facilitate future research endeavors.

Validation in the ESPOIR cohort of vitamin K-dependent protein S (PROS) as a potential biomarker capable of predicting response to the methotrexate/etanercept combination.

BACKGROUND: To validate the ability of PROS (vitamin K-dependent protein S) and CO7 (complement component C7) to predict response to the methotrexate (MTX)/etanercept (ETA) combination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who received this therapeutic combination in a well-documented cohort. METHOD: From the ESPOIR cohort, RA patients having received the MTX/ETA or MTX/adalimumab (ADA) combination as a first-line biologic treatment were included. Serum concentrations of PROS and CO7 were measured by ELISA prior to the initiation of ETA or ADA, at a time where the disease was active (DAS28 ESR > 3.2). The clinical efficacy (response/non-response) of both combinations has been evaluated after at least 6 months of treatment, according to the EULAR response criteria with some modifications. RESULTS: Thirty-two were treated by MTX/ETA; the numbers of responders and non-responders were 24 and 8, respectively. Thirty-three patients received the MTX/ADA combination; 27 and 5 patients were respectively responders and non-responders. While there were no differences for demographic, clinical, biological, and X-rays data, as well as for CO7, serum levels of PROS tended to be significantly higher in responders to the MTX/ETA combination (p = 0.08) while no difference was observed in the group receiving MTX/ADA. For PROS, the best concentration threshold to differentiate both groups was calculated at 40 µg/ml using ROC curve. The theranostic performances of PROS appeared better for the ETA/MTX combination. When considering the response to this combination, analysis of pooled data from ESPOIR and SATRAPE (initially used to validate PROS and CO7 as potential theranostic biomarkers) cohorts led to a higher theranostic value of PROS that became significant (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: PROS might be one candidate of a combination of biomarkers capable of predicting the response to MTX/ETA combination in RA patients refractory to MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03666091 and NCT00234234 .