RESUMO
Introduction: The effectiveness of canakinumab may change according to the different times it is used after Still's disease onset. This study aimed to investigate whether canakinumab (CAN) shows differences in short- and long-term therapeutic outcomes, according to its use as different lines of biologic treatment. Methods: Patients included in this study were retrospectively enrolled from the AutoInflammatory Disease Alliance (AIDA) International Registry dedicated to Still's disease. Seventy-seven (51 females and 26 males) patients with Still's disease were included in the present study. In total, 39 (50.6%) patients underwent CAN as a first-line biologic agent, and the remaining 38 (49.4%) patients were treated with CAN as a second-line biologic agent or subsequent biologic agent. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between patients treated with CAN as a first-line biologic agent and those previously treated with other biologic agents in terms of the frequency of complete response (p =0.62), partial response (p =0.61), treatment failure (p >0.99), and frequency of patients discontinuing CAN due to lack or loss of efficacy (p =0.2). Of all the patients, 18 (23.4%) patients experienced disease relapse during canakinumab treatment, 9 patients were treated with canakinumab as a first-line biologic agent, and nine patients were treated with a second-line or subsequent biologic agent. No differences were found in the frequency of glucocorticoid use (p =0.34), daily glucocorticoid dosage (p =0.47), or concomitant methotrexate dosage (p =0.43) at the last assessment during CAN treatment. Conclusion: Canakinumab has proved to be effective in patients with Still's disease, regardless of its line of biologic treatment.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The utilisation of telemedicine has been rapidly growing among patients with rheumatic diseases, especially following the corona virus disease 2019 pandemic. Ease and convenience appear to dominate the reasons for this growth. However, the effects of this approach in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are yet to be revealed. In this study, we examined the effect of telemedicine on disease activity assessment and damage scores in patients with SLE. METHODS: This case-crossover study was nested within a national prospective cohort of patients with SLE in Saudi Arabia. Patients with SLE were included if they fulfilled the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria between March 2020 and March 2021 and were assessed at three time points with 3 months between assessments, according to the standardised protocol of this cohort. Telemedicine was conducted for the first evaluation, while in-person assessments were used at the second and third visits. The primary outcome was the difference in the SLE disease activity index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score. The primary analysis was conducted using the repeated measure model and adjusted for potential confounders, including demographics, medications, and changes in steroid doses. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to mitigate selection and time-varying confounders. RESULTS: A total of 92 participants were included in this study. Most patients were females (88%), with a mean (±standard deviation [SD]) age of 36 (±13) years. The mean (±SD) disease activity scores at baseline were as follows: SLEDAI-2K, 5 (±5); SLE responder index, 3.8 (±3.5); Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology damage index, 1 (±1). The mean difference in SLEDAI-2K score was -1.641 (95% confidence interval -2.773 to -0.510, p = 0.005*) between telemedicine and follow-up visits. The results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: We found that telemedicine assessment was associated with a much higher disease activity score than subsequent assessments, which may suggest an overestimation of disease activity and later assessment accuracy. Cautious adoption has been suggested for SLE patients with active disease.
