Comorbidities and chance of remission in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate as first-line therapy: a Swedish observational nationwide study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine whether comorbidities affect the likelihood of reaching primary remission on methotrexate monotherapy as the first disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used nationwide Swedish clinical and quality registers to collect RA disease activity measures and comorbidity data for patients diagnosed with RA 2007-2020 (n=11 001). The primary outcome was failure to reach 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included Boolean, Simplified Disease Activity Index/Clinical Disease Activity Index remission, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology response and no swollen joint count at 3 and 6 months. For each comorbidity, and for combinations thereof, we calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) of failure to reach remission, using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: In total, 53% (n=4019/7643) failed to reach DAS28 remission after 3 months of methotrexate monotherapy, ranging from 66% (n=25/38) among patients with chronic kidney disease to 48% (n=154/319) in patients with previous cancer. The risk of not reaching DAS28 remission at 3 months (RR adjusted for sex and age) was increased among patients with endocrine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15), gastrointestinal (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.30), infectious (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38), psychiatric (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.35) and respiratory comorbidities (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32). Having three or more comorbidity categories was associated with a 27% higher risk of DAS28 remission failure at 3 months. A similar pattern was observed for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities decrease the chance of reaching remission on methotrexate as DMARD monotherapy in patients with early RA and are important to consider when assessing treatment outcomes.

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.