ABSTRACT
Background: Despite better accessibility of the effective lipid-lowering therapies, only about 20% of patients at very high cardiovascular risk achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. There is a large disparity between European countries with worse results observed for the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) patients. One of the main reasons for this ineffectiveness is therapeutic inertia related to the limited access to appropriate therapy and suitable dosage intensity. Thus, we aimed to compare the differences in physicians' therapeutic decisions on alirocumab dose selection, and factors affecting these in CEE countries vs. other countries included in the ODYSSEY APPRISE study. Methods: ODYSSEY APPRISE was a prospective, single-arm, phase 3b open-label (≥12 weeks to ≤30 months) study with alirocumab. Patients received 75 or 150 mg of alirocumab every 2 weeks, with dose adjustment during the study based on physician's judgment. The CEE group in the study included Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, which we compared with the other nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) plus Canada. Results: A total of 921 patients on alirocumab were involved [modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis], including 114 (12.4%) subjects from CEE countries. Therapy in CEE vs. other countries was numerically more frequently started with lower alirocumab dose (75 mg) at the first visit (74.6 vs. 68%, p = 0.16). Since week 36, the higher dose was predominantly used in CEE patients (150 mg dose in 51.6% patients), which was maintained by the end of the study. Altogether, alirocumab dose was significantly more often increased by CEE physicians (54.1 vs. 39.9%, p = 0.013). Therefore, more patients achieved LDL-C goal at the end of the study (<55 mg/dl/1.4 mmol/L and 50% reduction of LDL-C: 32.5% vs. 28.8%). The only factor significantly influencing the decision on dose of alirocumab was LDL-C level for both countries' groups (CEE: 199.2 vs. 175.3 mg/dl; p = 0.019; other: 205.9 vs. 171.6 mg/dl; p < 0.001, for 150 and 75 mg of alirocumab, respectively) which was also confirmed in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.07-1.13). Conclusions: Despite larger unmet needs and regional disparities in LDL-C targets achievement in CEE countries, more physicians in this region tend to use the higher dose of alirocumab, they are more prone to increase the dose, which is associated with a higher proportion of patients reaching LDL-C goals. The only factor that significantly influences decision whether to increase or decrease the dose of alirocumab is LDL-C level.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic disease of the connective tissue that leads to progressive joint destruction, disability, withdrawal from occupational activity, and premature death. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the paper was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine in monotherapy of RA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL) was performed. Only randomized blind trials were included into the analysis. The quality of the trials was assessed by the Jadad scale. A quantitative synthesis of the results was performed (meta-analysis). RESULTS: The analysis included 7 trials involving 2861 patients (1432 on leflunomide, 312 on placebo, 922 on methotrexate, and 133 on sulfasalazine). Leflunomide, compared with placebo, increased the probability of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response 2-fold (relative risk [RR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.46-2.80) and the probability of ACR50 response 4-fold (RR, 4.36; 95% CI, 2.33-8.17), after 1 year of treatment. Efficacy of leflunomide did not differ from that of methotrexate with reference to the majority of endpoints. Leflunomide showed partial superiority over methotrexate in the percentage of patients obtaining ACR50 and ACR70 response, doctor's assessment of the disease activity, reduction in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and improvement of the quality of life (assessed with the modified health assessment questionnaire [HAQ]). Sulfasalazine showed partial superiority in the reduction of erythrocyte sedimentation rate, while leflunomide was superior to sulfasalazine the ACR20 and ACR50 clinical response, quality of life (assessed with the HAQ), doctor's and patient's assessment of the disease activity, and reduction in CRP levels. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between the effects of treatment with leflunomide and methotrexate or sulfasalazine, but leflunomide monotherapy proved more effective than placebo in relieving symptoms and signs of RA.
