Search

To evaluate the drug treatment trends in patients with incident juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in 2006–2014. In Finland, patients are entitled to a special reimbursement for medication if their condition meets certain criteria. We gathered all reimbursement decisions with the ICD-10 diagnosis of M08 for patients under 16 years of age from a nationwide register maintained by Kela, the Social Institution of Finland. A total of 2439 incident cases of JIA were identified. We surveyed their reimbursable drugs purchased for the first time for JIA upon a doctor's prescription in 3-year cohorts (2006–2008, 2009–2011, 2012–2014). Changes of drug treatment for JIA became more active during our study years. Between 2006–2008 and 2011–2014, the introduction of methotrexate (MTX) for the first time within the first 3 months increased from 73% (2006–2008) to 90% (2011–2014) of the patients, IRR (incidence rate ratio) was 1.23 (95% CI 1.10–1.37). The use of parenteral MTX increased even more; IRR was 1.97 (95% CI 1.61–2.41). During the first 2 years of their disease, 18% of the first cohort received subcutaneous biologic agents, while the corresponding proportion in the last cohort was 31%. Biologic agents were more likely to be introduced for patients with early (3 months) MTX administration than for patients without early MTX introduction; HR (hazard ratio) 2.19 (95% CI 1.63–2.93). During the follow-up, MTX administration became more prevalent for the treatment of JIA soon after diagnosis, mostly because of the increase in the use of parenteral MTX. Key Points • The drug therapy for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis has changed during recent years. • Methotrexate, some other conventional DMARDs, and biologic DMARDs are introduced earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a common complication of immunosuppressive treatment in high prevalence countries. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) cause this adverse event more often than conventional immunosuppressants. The incidence of HBV reactivation during treatment for rheumatic diseases in Germany is unclear. Furthermore, it remains open how to treat and monitor patients at risk during immunosuppressive therapy with bDMARDs. We examined 2054 patients from a German tertiary rheumatology center in order to analyze the prevalence of HBc-antibody-positivity and the incidence of HBV reactivation in German rheumatology patients treated with immunosuppressants. Of 1317 patients treated with bDMARDs and 737 conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARDs) patients between 2008 and 2017, 86 had a history of HBV infection (anti-HBc positive). Only two patients were suffering from chronic infection (HBsAg positive). Three patients were treated pre-emptively with entecavir, and eight patients after HBV DNA reappearance. No liver failure occurred due to HBV reactivation. Compared to anti-HBc-positive patients without reactivation, the reactivation group included more patients exposed to three or more classes of bDMARDs (p = 0.017). The median HBs antibody titer was significantly lower in the reactivation group (15.0 IU/l vs. 293.5 IU/l; p = 0.001). This study shows that bDMARDs and csDMARDs can safely be administered to patients with a history of HBV, provided they are closely monitored. Low titers of anti-HBs antibodies and a history of ≥ 3 classes of immunosuppressants increase the risk of HBV reactivation. These data highlight major differences to high prevalence regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]