Short-term, intermediate-term and long-term risks of acute coronary syndrome in cohorts of patients with RA starting biologic DMARDs: results from four Nordic countries.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the 1-year, 2-year and 5-year incidences of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting any of the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) currently available in clinical practice and to anchor these results with a general population comparator. METHODS: Observational cohort study, with patients from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden starting a bDMARD during 2008-2017. Time to first ACS was identified through register linkages. We calculated the 1-year, 2-year and 5-year incidence rates (IR) (on drug and ever since treatment start) and used Cox regression (HRs) to compare ACS incidences across treatments taking ACS risk factors into account. Analyses were further performed separately in subgroups defined by age, number of previous bDMARDs and history of cardiovascular disease. We also compared ACS incidences to an individually matched general population cohort. RESULTS: 24 083 patients (75% women, mean age 56 years) contributing 40 850 treatment courses were included. During the maximum (5 years) follow-up (141 257 person-years (pyrs)), 780 ACS events occurred (crude IR 5.5 per 1000 pyrs). Overall, the incidence of ACS in RA was 80% higher than that in the general population. For all bDMARDs and follow-up definitions, HRs were close to 1 (etanercept as reference) with the exception of the 5-year risk window, where signals for abatacept, infliximab and rituximab were noted. CONCLUSION: The rate of ACS among patients with RA initiating bDMARDs remains elevated compared with the general population. As used in routine care, the short-term, intermediate-term and longer-term risks of ACS vary little across individual bDMARDs.

Risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in routine care with abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in Denmark and Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate (1) crude and age-and gender-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) of serious infections (SI) and (2) relative risks (RR) of SI in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating treatment with abatacept, rituximab or tocilizumab in routine care. METHODS: This is an observational cohort study conducted in parallel in Denmark and Sweden including patients with RA in Denmark (DANBIO) and Sweden (Anti-Rheumatic Treatment in Sweden Register/Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register) who started abatacept/rituximab/tocilizumab in 2010-2015. Patients could contribute to more than one treatment course. Incident SI (hospitalisations listing infection) and potential confounders were identified through linkage to national registries. Age- and gender-adjusted IRs of SI per 100 person years and additionally adjusted RRs of SI during 0-12 and 0-24 months since start of treatment were assessed (Poisson regression). Country-specific RRs were pooled using inverse variance weighting. RESULTS: We identified 8987 treatment courses (abatacept: 2725; rituximab: 3363; tocilizumab: 2899). At treatment start, rituximab-treated patients were older, had longer disease duration and more previous malignancies; tocilizumab-treated patients had higher C reactive protein. During 0-12 and 0-24 months of follow-up, 456 and 639 SI events were identified, respectively. The following were the age- and gender-adjusted 12-month IRs for abatacept/rituximab/tocilizumab: 7.1/8.1/6.1 for Denmark and 6.0/6.4/4.7 for Sweden. The 24-month IRs were 6.1/7.5/5.2 for Denmark and 5.6/5.8/4.3 for Sweden. Adjusted 12-month RRs for tocilizumab versus rituximab were 0.82 (0.50 to 1.36) for Denmark and 0.76 (0.57 to 1.02) for Sweden, pooled 0.78 (0.61 to 1.01); for abatacept versus rituximab 0.94 (0.55 to 1.60) for Denmark and 0.86 (0.66 to 1.13) for Sweden, pooled 0.88 (0.69 to 1.12); and for abatacept versus tocilizumab 1.15 (0.69 to 1.90) for Denmark and 1.14 (0.83 to 1.55) for Sweden, pooled 1.13 (0.91 to 1.42). The adjusted RRs for 0-24 months were similar. CONCLUSION: For patients starting abatacept, rituximab or tocilizumab, differences in baseline characteristics were seen. Numerical differences in IR of SI between drugs were observed. RRs seemed to vary with drug (tocilizumab < abatacept < rituximab) but should be interpreted with caution due to few events and risk of residual confounding.

A nationwide non-medical switch from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in 802 patients with inflammatory arthritis: 1-year clinical outcomes from the DANBIO registry.

OBJECTIVES: According to guidelines, a nationwide non-medical switch from originator (INX, Remicade) to biosimilar infliximab (Remsima, CT-P13) was conducted in Danish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). We investigated disease activity before/after switching and retention rates in the DANBIO registry. METHODS: Disease activities 3 months before and after switch and changes over time were calculated. Flare was defined as change in 28 Joint Disease Activity Score (∆DAS28) ≥1.2 (RA/PsA) or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (∆ASDAS) ≥1.3 (AxSpA). Crude and adjusted retention rates were compared with a historic cohort of INX-treated patients. RESULTS: Eight hundred and two patients switched (403 RA/120 PsA/279 AxSpA; 51% women, age (median (IQR): 55 (44-66)) years). Follow-up was 413 (339-442) days. Prior INX treatment duration was 6.8 (4.3-9.5) years. Disease activities were similar 3 months before/after switch. Crude 1-year CT-P13 retention rate (84.1 (95% CI 81.3 to 86.5)) was similar to the historic IFX cohort (86.2 (95% CI 84.0 to 88.0), p=0.22). The adjusted absolute retention rates were 83.4 (95% CI 80.8 to 86.2) and 86.8% (95% CI 84.8 to 88.8), respectively (p=0.03). In total 132 patients withdrew (lack of effect: 71/132=54%, adverse events: 37/132=28%). Patients with previous INX treatment duration >5 years had longer CT-P13 retention. CONCLUSION: In 802 arthritis patients treated with INX for median >6 years, a nationwide non-medical switch to CT-P13 had no negative impact on disease activity. Adjusted 1-year CT-P13 retention rate was slightly lower than for INX in a historic cohort.

The association of fatigue, comorbidity burden, disease activity, disability and gross domestic product in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results from 34 countries participating in the Quest-RA program.

OBJECTIVES: The aim is to assess the prevalence of comorbidities and to further analyse to which degree fatigue can be explained by comorbidity burden, disease activity, disability and gross domestic product (GDP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Nine thousands eight hundred seventy-four patients from 34 countries, 16 with high GDP (>24.000 US dollars [USD] per capita) and 18 low-GDP countries (<24.000 USD) participated in the Quantitative Standard monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA) study. The prevalence of 31 comorbid conditions, fatigue (0-10 cm visual analogue scale [VAS] [10=worst]), disease activity in 28 joints (DAS28), and physical disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire score [HAQ]) were assessed. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to assess the association between fatigue and comorbidities, disease activity, disability and GDP. RESULTS: Overall, patients reported a median of 2 comorbid conditions of which hypertension (31.5%), osteoporosis (17.6%), osteoarthritis (15.5%) and hyperlipidaemia (14.2%) were the most prevalent. The majority of comorbidities were more common in high-GDP countries. The median fatigue score was 4.4 (4.8 in low-GDP countries and 3.8 in high-GDP countries, p<0.001). In low-GDP countries 25.4% of the patients had a high level of fatigue (>6.6) compared with 23.0% in high-GDP countries (p<0.001). In univariate analysis, fatigue increased with increasing number of comorbidities, disease activity and disability in both high- and low-GDP countries. In multivariate analysis of all countries, these 3 variables explained 29.4% of the variability, whereas GDP was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue is a widespread problem associated with high comorbidity burden, disease activity and disability regardless of GDP.

One-Year Treatment Outcomes of Secukinumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Spondyloarthritis: Results From Five Nordic Biologic Registries Including More Than 10,000 Treatment Courses.

OBJECTIVE: To describe baseline characteristics and to compare treatment effectiveness of secukinumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) using adalimumab as the main comparator. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective cohort study. Patients with SpA (clinical ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial SpA, or undifferentiated SpA) starting secukinumab or a TNFi during 2015-2018 were identified from 5 Nordic clinical rheumatology registries. Data on comorbidities and extraarticular manifestations (psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease) were captured from national registries (data available in 94% of patients) and included in multivariable analyses. We assessed 1-year treatment retention (crude survival curves, adjusted hazard ratios [HRadj ] for treatment discontinuation) and 6-month response rates (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] score <2.1, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] <40 mm, crude/LUNDEX-adjusted, adjusted logistic regression analyses with odds ratios [ORs]) stratified by line of biologic treatment (first, second, and third plus). RESULTS: In total, 10,853 treatment courses (842 secukinumab and 10,011 TNFi, of which 1,977 were adalimumab) were included. The proportions of patients treated with secukinumab during the first, second, and third-plus lines of treatment were 1%, 6%, and 22%, respectively). Extraarticular manifestations varied across treatments, while other baseline characteristics were largely similar. Secukinumab had a 1-year retention comparable to adalimumab as a first or second line of treatment but poorer as a third-plus line of therapy (secukinumab 56% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 51-61%] versus adalimumab 70% [95% CI 64-75%]; HRadj 1.43 [95% CI 1.12-1.81]). Across treatment lines, secukinumab had poorer estimates for 6-month response rates than adalimumab, statistically significantly only for the third-plus line (adjusted analyses: ASDAS score <2.1 OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.35-0.90]; BASDAI <40 mm OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.41-0.95]). Treatment outcomes varied across the 5 TNFi. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab was mainly used in biologics-experienced patients with SpA. Secukinumab and adalimumab performed similarly in patients who had failed a first biologic, although with increasing prior biologic exposure, adalimumab was superior.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING: Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS: Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. RESULTS: 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS: All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.