Adalimumab and etanercept adherence, persistence and switch in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: 10-year real-life analysis.
阿达木单抗和依那西普治疗银屑病关节炎的依从性、持久性和转换性: 10 年真实生活分析。
- 作者列表："Santoleri F","Romagnoli A","Costantini A
:Objectives: The objective of this study was to calculate adherence, persistence and 10-year switches in patients with PsA, by comparing adalimumab and etanercept in real life.Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective, observational, pharmacological and non-interventional study taking into consideration the dispensations of the study drugs at the Hospital Pharmacy, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018. In the study, the authors considered adalimumab and etanercept. The authors calculated adherence to treatment through the relationship between received daily dose (RDD) and prescribed daily dose (PDD), and calculated persistence to treatment as the difference in days between the first and last dispensation.Results: The authors enrolled 113 patients, 60 treated with adalimumab and 53 with etanercept. Adherence levels were 0.83 for adalimumab and 0.84 for etanercept. Switches occurred in 42% of adalimumab and in 47% of etanercept prescriptions.Conclusion: In the treatment of PsA, persistence and switches are a problem for patients who cannot follow a consistent therapy over time, for clinicians who have to manage therapy suspension and changes, and for the National Health System that must procure and pay for a high number of drugs without information on their real value in terms of efficacy and safety of use.
: 目的: 本研究的目的是通过在现实生活中比较阿达木单抗和依那西普，计算PsA患者的依从性、持久性和 10 年转换。方法: 作者进行了一项回顾性、观察性、药理学和非干预性研究，考虑了研究药物在医院药房的处方，2007 年 1 月 1 日至 3 1 年 12 月 20 1 8 日。在研究中，作者考虑了阿达木单抗和依那西普。作者通过接受日剂量 (RDD) 和处方日剂量 (PDD) 之间的关系计算治疗依从性，并将治疗的持续性计算为第一次和最后一次给药之间的天数差异。结果: 作者入组了 113 例患者，阿达木单抗治疗 60 例，依那西普治疗 53 例。阿达木单抗和依那西普的依从性水平分别为 0.83 和 0.84。42% 的阿达木单抗和 47% 的依那西普处方发生了开关。结论: 在PsA的治疗中，持续性和开关对于不能随着时间的推移遵循一致治疗的患者来说是一个问题，对于必须管理治疗暂停和改变的临床医生来说，对于必须采购和支付大量药物的国家卫生系统来说，没有关于其疗效和使用安全性的真正价值的信息。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.