Implementation of recommendations in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: considerations for development and uptake.

A clinical guideline is a document with the aim of guiding decisions based on evidence regarding diagnosis, management and treatment in specific areas of healthcare. Specific to rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), adherence to clinical guidelines recommendations impacts the outcomes of people with these diseases. However, currently, the implementation of recommendations is less than optimal in rheumatology.The WHO has described the implementation of evidence-based recommendations as one of the greatest challenges facing the global health community and has identified the importance of scaling up these recommendations. But closing the evidence-to-practice gap is often complex, time-consuming and difficult. In this context, the implementation science offers a framework to overcome this scenario.This article describes the principles of implementation science to facilitate and optimise the implementation of clinical recommendations in RMDs. Embedding implementation science methods and techniques into recommendation development and daily practice can help maximise the likelihood that implementation is successful in improving the quality of healthcare and healthcare services.

Risk of solid cancers overall and by subtypes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with TNF inhibitors - a Nordic cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether TNF inhibitors (TNFi) are associated with increased risk of solid cancer in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: From the Nordic clinical rheumatology registers (CRR) here: SRQ/ARTIS (Sweden), DANBIO (Denmark), NOR-DMARD (Norway), ROB-FIN (Finland) and ICEBIO (Iceland) we identified PsA patients who started a first TNFi 2001-2017 (n = 9655). We identified patients with PsA not treated with biologics from (i) the CRR (n = 14 809) and (ii) the national patient registers (PR, n = 31 350). By linkage to the national cancer registers, we collected information on incident solid cancer overall and for eight cancer types. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI of cancer (per country and pooled) in TNFi-exposed vs biologics-naïve, adjusting for age, sex, calendar period, comorbidities and disease activity. We also assessed standardized incidence ratios (SIR) in TNFi-exposed PsA vs the general population (GP). RESULTS: We identified 296 solid cancers among the TNFi-exposed PsA patients (55 850 person-years); the pooled adjusted HR for solid cancer overall was 1.0 (0.9-1.2) for TNFi-exposed vs biologics-naïve PsA from the CRR, and 0.8 (0.7-1.0) vs biologics-naïve PsA from the PRs. There were no significantly increased risks for any of the cancer types under study. The pooled SIR of solid cancer overall in TNFi treated PsA vs GP was 1.0 (0.9-1.1). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort study from five Nordic countries, we found no increased risk of solid cancer in TNFi-treated PsA patients, neither for solid cancer overall nor for eight common cancer types.

Comparison of treatment retention and response to secukinumab versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment retention and response to secukinumab vs adalimumab, including the other four TNF inhibitors (TNFi) as comparators, in PsA. METHODS: All patients with PsA starting secukinumab or a TNFi in 2015-2018 were identified in the biologic registers of the Nordic countries. Data on comorbidities were linked from national registers. One-year treatment retention and hazard ratios (HRs) for treatment discontinuation were calculated. The proportion achieving a 6 month 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) remission was determined together with odds ratios (ORs) for remission (logistic regression). Both HRs and ORs were calculated with adalimumab as the reference and adjusted for baseline characteristics and concurrent comorbidities. All analyses were stratified by the line of biologic treatment (first, second, third+). RESULTS: We identified 6143 patients contributing 8307 treatment courses (secukinumab, 1227; adalimumab, 1367). Secukinumab was rarely used as the first biologic, otherwise baseline characteristics were similar. No clinically significant differences in treatment retention or response rates were observed for secukinumab vs adalimumab. The adjusted HRs for discontinuation per the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.98 (95% CI 0.68, 1.41), 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) and 1.07 (0.84, 1.36), respectively. The ORs for DAPSA28 remission in the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.62 (95% CI 0.30, 1.28), 0.85 (0.41, 1.78) and 0.74 (0.36, 1.51), respectively. In the subset of patients previously failing a TNFi due to ineffectiveness, the results were similar. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in treatment retention or response were observed between secukinumab and adalimumab, regardless of the line of treatment. This suggests that even in patients who have failed a TNFi, choosing either another TNFi or secukinumab may be equally effective.

Treatment retention of infliximab and etanercept originators versus their corresponding biosimilars: Nordic collaborative observational study of 2334 biologics naïve patients with spondyloarthritis.

Objective: Although clinical trials support equivalence of originator products and biosimilars for etanercept and infliximab, real-world studies among biologics-naïve patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are lacking. The objectives were to compare treatment retention in biologics-naïve patients with SpA starting either the originator product or a biosimilar of infliximab and etanercept, and to explore the baseline characteristics of these patients. Methods: Patients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographical axial SpA/undifferentiated SpA), starting infliximab or etanercept as their first-ever biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug during January 2014-June 2017 were identified in five Nordic biologics-rheumatology registers. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from each registry; comorbidity data were identified through linkage to national health registers. Country-specific data were pooled, and data on infliximab and etanercept were analysed separately. Comparisons of treatment retention between originators and biosimilars were assessed through survival probability curves, retention rates (2 years for infliximab/1 year for etanercept) and Hazard Ratios (HR). Results: We included 1319 patients starting infliximab (24% originator/76% biosimilar), and 1015 patients starting etanercept (49% originator/51% biosimilar). Baseline characteristics were largely similar for the patients treated with the originators compared with the corresponding biosimilars. Survival probability curves were highly similar for the originator and its biosimilar, as were retention rates: infliximab 2-year retention originator, 44% (95% CI 38% to 50%)/biosimilar, 46% (95% CI: 42% to 51%); and etanercept 1-year retention originator, 66% (95% CI 61% to 70%)/biosimilar, 73% (95% CI 68% to 78%). HRs were not statistically significant. Conclusion: This observational study of biologics-naïve patients with SpA from five Nordic countries showed similar baseline characteristics and very similar retention rates in patients treated with originators versus biosimilars, for both infliximab and etanercept, indicating comparable effectiveness in clinical practice.