Tumor-induced osteomalacia: A systematic literature review.

Introduction: Tumor-induced osteomalacia (TIO), is a rare acquired paraneoplastic syndrome characterized by defective bone mineralization, caused by the overproduction of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) by a tumor. Material and methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify all case reports of TIO, focusing on those associated with mesenchymal tumors. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) consensus, and we included patients with a diagnosis of TIO and histological confirmation of phosphaturic mesenchymal tumors or resolution of the condition after treatment of the tumor. Bibliographical searches were carried out until December 2023 in the Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase, as well as congress abstracts online. Results: We identified 769 articles with 1979 cases reported. Most patients were adults, with a higher incidence on men. Disease duration before diagnosis is a mean of 4.8 years. Most tumors were histologically classified as PMT. Lower limbs were the predominant location. Hypophosphatemia was present in 99.8 % of patients. The FGF23 was elevated at diagnosis in 95.5 %. Resection of the tumor was the treatment of choice in most of patients. After resection, there was a clinical improvement in 97.6 % of cases, and serum phosphorus and FGF23 levels returned to normal ranges in 91.5 % and 81.4 % of the patients, respectively. Conclusion: TIO is usually misdiagnosed with rheumatological or musculoskeletal disorders. The diagnosis should be suspected in patients with hypophosphatemic osteomalacia, and the measurement of serum FGF23 can be useful for diagnosis and management.

Direct costs in patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies on biological therapy: a real-world data study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the direct costs for the Spanish Health System of patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies treated with biological therapies in daily clinical practice and to establish possible factors associated with lower costs. METHODS: A descriptive, observational and retrospective study was conducted. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis who started a biological therapy between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were included. Variables related to socioeconomic status, disease and biological therapy were included. The annual cost of biological treatment and other direct medical costs were calculated for each disease. The analysis of costs was based on the National Health Service perspective. The time horizon comprised the 8-year long study period. RESULTS: A total of 422 biological therapy lines were analysed. The annual biological therapy cost per patient was €12,494±3,865 for rheumatoid arthritis, €11,248±2,763 for ankylosing spondylitis and €12,263±35,155 for psoriatic arthritis (p=0.008). The cost of biological therapies entailed about 80% of the total cost of these diseases. Hospital admission was a factor which contributed to an increasing cost in all these conditions. A longer duration of the biological therapy was associated with lower cost in all the diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of ankylosing spondylitis is lower than that of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. The biological therapy is the factor with the highest impact on the overall cost of these diseases. Preventing hospital admissions and a higher persistence to the biological therapy can contribute to lower costs for the system.

Medication persistence on biological therapies prescribed for the treatment of chronic inflammatory arthropathies: a real-world data study.

OBJECTIVES: Medication persistence, defined as the duration of time from its initiation to its discontinuation, is a surrogate for treatment effectiveness. The aim of the study was to evaluate persistence and causes of biological therapy (BT) suspension in patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies: rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: Single institution, descriptive, retrospective cohort study. Adult patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies on BT between January 2009 and December 2016 were included. Persistence to BT was compared considering the type of pathology and treatment. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to analyse medication persistanence and factors associated with it. An analysis of reasons for therapy discontinuation was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two patients were included in the study, which comprised 478 BT lines. For all patients, the 12-month persistence rate was 71.3% (341 out of 478). At the end of the study, 45.2% of the patients continued on their initial BT. Median treatment persistence was 1489 days (CI 95% 1195 to 1783). Longer BT persistence was associated with naïve BT patients: 1945 days (95% CI 1523 to 2367; P<0.001) and ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis: 2402 days (95% CI 1604 to 3200; P=0.014). The most frequent causes of treatment discontinuation were therapeutic failure (47.6%) and adverse drug events (28.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We found good long-term persistence in patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies treated with BT. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis had significantly shorter persistence compared with those with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Naïve BT was associated with longer persistence. Therapeutic failure was the main cause of BT withdrawal.

Biological therapy safety in chronic inflammatory arthropathy patients.

OBJECTIVE: The marketing of biological therapies transformed the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. But there is still concern about patient safety and management in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to estimate risk factors of the adverse effects in a cohort of Spanish patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: A single institution, descriptive, retrospective, cohort study was developed from January 2009 to December 2016. Patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis on biological therapies were included. Undesirable events affecting patients during biological therapy, their clinical implications and the use of health resources related to adverse effects were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two patients corresponding to 478 biological therapy lines were analysed. It implied 1192 years of monitoring. There were 57 adverse effects per 100 biological patient-years and 4.8 serious adverse effects per 100 biological patient-years. The only significant factor for a likely serious adverse effect was having a Charlson Index ≥10, OR of 6.2 (CI 95%: 3.4-11.1, p<0.001). Around 15 % of patients with adverse effects were admitted to hospital and 25% received attention at the Emergency Department. CONCLUSION: Over half of the patients with arthropathies on biological therapy can suffer adverse effect during treatment but only 8.5% of these effects are serious. Special vigilance must be paid to patients with a higher number of comorbidities because they are more likely to experience serious adverse effects.

Biological therapy safety in chronic inflammatory arthropathy patients.

OBJECTIVE: The marketing of biological therapies transformed the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. But there is still concern about patient safety and management in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to estimate risk factors of the adverse effects in a cohort of Spanish patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: A single institution, descriptive, retrospective, cohort study was developed from January 2009 to December 2016. Patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis on biological therapies were included. Undesirable events affecting patients during biological therapy, their clinical implications and the use of health resources related to adverse effects were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two patients corresponding to 478 biological therapy lines were analysed. It implied 1192 years of monitoring. There were 57 adverse effects per 100 biological patient- years and 4.8 serious adverse effects per 100 biological patient-years. The only significant factor for a likely serious adverse effect was having a Charlson Index ≥10, OR of 6.2 (CI 95%: 3.4-11.1, p<0.001). Around 15 % of patients with adverse effects were admitted to hospital and 25% received attention at the Emergency Department. CONCLUSION: Over half of the patients with arthropathies on biological therapy can suffer adverse effect during treatment but only 8.5% of these effects are serious. Special vigilance must be paid to patients with a higher number of comorbidities because they are more likely to experience serious adverse effects.

Adherence to biological therapies in patients with chronic inflammatory arthropathies.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of the study were to quantify adherence, determine the factors that can  predict adherence and identify the consequences of poorer adherence in patients with chronic  inflammatory arthropathies treated with biological therapies in daily clinical practice. METHOD: A descriptive, observational and retrospective study was carried out. Patients with  rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis who started a biologic therapy  between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were included. Variables related to socioeconomic  status, the disease, the biological therapy and hospital resources were included. Adherence was  calculated by using the medication possession ratio. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-two patients and 423 lines of biological therapy were included.  Mean age ± standard deviation was 50.3 ± 13.9 years, and 228 (53.9%) were women. The  percentage of adherent patients was 187 out of 216 (87%) in rheumatoid arthritis, 91 out of 107  (85%) in ankylosing spondylitis and 84 out of 100 (84%) in psoriatic arthritis. Greater adherence was  associated with more frequent visits to the pharmacy service (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence  interval: 1.1-1.3 [p = 0.001]) and poorer adherence with a failure to attend scheduled appointments  at the rheumatology clinic (odds ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.9 [p = 0.030]). There were  no differences between  adherent and non-adherent patients in terms of the number of hospital resources used. CONCLUSIONS: There are no differences in adherence to biological therapies among patients with  chronic inflammatory arthropathies. Adherence correlates with attendance at outpatient  appointments, but this does not imply an increase in the use of hospital resources.

Objetivo: Los objetivos del estudio fueron cuantificar la adherencia, determinar los factores  predictivos y conocer las consecuencias de una menor adherencia, en la práctica clínica diaria, en  pacientes con artropatías inflamatorias crónicas tratados con terapias biológicas. Método: Estudio descriptivo, observacional y retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes con artritis  reumatoide, espondilitis anquilosante y artritis psoriásica que iniciaron una terapia biológica entre el 1  de enero de 2009 y el 31 de diciembre de 2016. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, relacionadas con la enfermedad, sobre las terapias biológicas y los recursos  hospitalarios. La adherencia se calculó mediante la ratio media de posesión.Resultados: Se incluyeron 362 pacientes y 423 líneas de terapia biológica. La media de edad ±  desviación estándar fue de 50,3 ± 13,9 años; 228 (53,9%) fueron mujeres. El porcentaje de  adherentes fue de 187 de 216 (87%) en artritis reumatoide, 91 de 107 (85%) en espondilitis  anquilosante y 84 de 100 (84%) en artritis psoriásica. La adherencia se relacionó con acudir con más  frecuencia a la consulta del servicio de farmacia(odds ratio de 1,2; intervalo de confianza 95%: 1,1- 1,3 [p = 0,001]) e inversamente con no acudir a las consultas de reumatología en la fecha prevista (odds ratio de 0,2; intervalo de confianza 95%: 0,1-0,9 [p = 0,030]). No hubo diferencias en  el número de recursos hospitalarios utilizados por pacientes adherentes y no adherentes.Conclusiones: La adherencia a las terapias biológicas entre las artropatías inflamatorias crónicas es  similar. Dicha adherencia se correlaciona con la frecuentación a consultas externas, pero no implica  un aumento del consumo de recursos.

Juvenile- and adult-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparative study in a large cohort from the Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry (RELESSER).

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (jSLE) features and to establish its differences compared to adult-onset SLE (aSLE) from a large national database. METHODS: Data from patients (≥4 ACR criteria) included in Spanish Society of Rheumatology Lupus Registry (RELESSER) were analysed. Sociodemographic, clinical, serological, activity, treatment, cumulative damage, comorbidities and severity data were collected. Patients with disease onset <18 years were described and compared to those with disease onset ≥18 years. RESULTS: We reviewed 3,428 aSLE patients (89.6% women) and 484 jSLE patients (89.8% girls), 93% Caucasian (both groups). Mean age at diagnosis was 38.1±14 and 16.6±6.3 years (p<0.001) and mean age at the end of follow-up was 48.8±14.3 and 31.5±30 years (p<0.001), respectively. jSLE showed significantly more clinical (including lymphadenopathy, fever, malar rash, mucosal ulcers, pericarditis, pleuritis, Raynaud's phenomenon, lupus nephritis, recurrent nephritis, histologic nephritis changes, thrombocytopenia, haemolytic anaemia, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, seizures, lupus headache and organic brain syndrome) and immunological (a-dsDNA and a-Sm antibodies, hypocomplementaemia) involvement than did aSLE, except for secondary Sjögren's syndrome, a-Ro antibodies, fibromyalgia and osteoporosis. jSLE also showed more SLE family history, longer diagnosis delay, higher SLEDAI and Katz scores, but lower Charlson scores than aSLE. Several specific domains were more frequently involved in SLICC/ACR DI in jSLE. jSLE patients more frequently underwent all SLE-related treatment and procedures, as well as dialysis and kidney transplantations. CONCLUSIONS: jSLE shares many clinical and serological features with aSLE. However, jSLE patients typically manifested more activity, severity, cumulative damage in certain areas, than their aSLE counterparts.