Search

Objective: Longitudinal clinical registry-infrastructures such as Anti-Rheumatic Therapies in Sweden (ARTIS) allow simultaneous comparison of the safety of individual immunomodulatory drugs used in clinical practice, with consistent definitions of treatment cohorts, follow-up and outcomes. Our objective was to assess and compare incidence rates of key safety outcomes for individual targeted synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), updating previous reports and including newer treatments including Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi)., Methods: Nationwide register-based cohort study including all patients with RA in Sweden registered as starting any b/tsDMARD 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2020, followed until 30 June 2021 (N=20 117). The incidence rates of selected outcomes, identified through national healthcare registers, were compared between individual b/tsDMARDs, adjusted for confounding by demographics, RA disease characteristics and comorbidity., Results: There were marked differences in treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (rates per 1000 person-years ranged from 18 on rituximab to 57 on tofacitinib), but few significant differences were observed for the serious adverse events under study. Neither cardiovascular events nor general serious infections were more frequent on baricitinib or tofacitinib versus bDMARDs, but JAKi were associated with higher rates of hospital-treated herpes zoster (HR vs etanercept, 3.82 (95% CI 2.05 to 7.09) and 4.00 (1.59 to 10.06)). Low number of events limited some comparisons, in particular for sarilumab and tofacitinib., Conclusion: Data from ARTIS supports that the b/tsDMARDs currently used to treat RA have acceptable and largely similar safety profiles, but differences exist in particular concerning tolerability and specific infection risks., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The ARTIS project is supported by agreements between Karolinska Institutet (with JA as PI) and the listed entities, mainly for the national safety monitoring of rheumatology immunomodulators in Sweden (ARTIS): Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi. TF, HB, DDG and BD are partly employed by the ARTIS project. EL, MM, NF, UL and HFdE report no conflict of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate the risk of haematological malignancies in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) overall, and in relation to treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi)., Methods: We identified that patients with PsA starting a first TNFi from the clinical rheumatology registers (CRR) in the five Nordic countries (n=10 621) and biologics-naïve PsA patients from (1) the CRR (n=18 705) and (2) the national patient registers (NPR, n=27 286, Sweden and Denmark) from 2006 through 2019. For Sweden and Denmark, general population comparators were matched 5:1 to PsA patients on birth year, year at start of follow-up and sex. By linkage to the national cancer registers in all countries, we collected information on haematological malignancies overall, and categorised into lymphoid or myeloid types. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs using modified Poisson regression for TNFi-treated versus biologics-naïve PsA patients and versus the general population adjusted for age, sex, calendar period and country., Results: During 59 827 person-years, 40 haematological malignancies occurred among TNFi-treated patients with PsA resulting in a pooled IRR of 0.96 (0.68-1.35) versus biologics-naïve PsA from CRR and an IRR of 0.84 (0.64-1.10) versus biologics-naïve PsA from NPR. The IRR of haematological malignancies in PsA overall versus general population comparators was 1.35 (1.17-1.55). The estimates were largely similar for lymphoid and myeloid malignancies., Conclusions: Treatment with TNFi in patients with PsA was not associated with an increased incidence of haematological malignancies. Conversely, a moderately increased underlying risk was seen in patients with PsA compared with the general population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JA: Consultant and grant research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB. PI: Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Pfizer; Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and Vifor Pharma; Grant/research support from: Pfizer. BG: Speakers bureau and consultant of Novartis, not related to this work. TJL: Speakers bureau: AbbVie and Pfizer Advisory board: Galapagos, Vifor Pharma, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. BM: Grant/research support from: Novartis, not related to this work. LD: Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Galderma and Janssen; Grant/research support from: BMS not related to this work. BD is partly employed by the ARTIS/Swedish Biologics Register., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate risk factors and characteristics of active tuberculosis (TB) in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: We conducted a population-based case-control study using the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register, the National Patient Register, and the Tuberculosis Register to identify RA patients with active TB and matched RA controls without TB between 2001-2014. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. TB risk was estimated as adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses., Results: After validation of diagnoses, the study included 31 RA patients with TB and 122 matched RA controls. All except 3 cases had reactivation of latent TB. Pulmonary TB was most prevalent (84%). Ever use of methotrexate was not associated with increased TB risk (aOR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3-2.0), whereas ever treatment with leflunomide (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 1.5-24.7), azathioprine (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1-13.8), and prednisolone (PSL; aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.0-6.0) was. There were no significant differences between maximum dose of PSL, treatment duration with PSL before TB, or cumulative dose of PSL the year before TB diagnosis between cases and controls. Obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with an increased TB risk (aOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.5-10.7)., Conclusion: Several RA-associated factors may contribute to increased TB risk in biologic-naïve patients with RA, making the risk of TB activation difficult to predict in the individual patient. To further decrease TB in patients with RA, the results suggest that screening for latent TB should also be considered in biologic-naïve patients., (© 2021 The Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To estimate the association between biological DMARDs (bDMARDs; overall and by drug) as used in RA and the risk of malignant lymphomas including subtypes., Methods: By linking nationwide Swedish registers we identified cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with a bDMARD (n = 16 392), bDMARD-naïve (n = 55 253), an age- and sex-matched general population comparator cohort (n = 229 047), and all incident lymphomas 2001-16. We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of lymphoma taking calendar period and other factors into account., Results: There were 82 lymphomas among the bDMARD-treated patients with RA, crude incidence rate 76/100 000 person-years, and 310 lymphomas among the bDMARD-naïve patients with RA, crude incidence rate 90/100 000 person-years. This resulted in an adjusted HR (aHR) associated with bDMARD treatment (vs not) of 1.08 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.41). The corresponding aHR for bDMARD-treated and bDMARD-naïve vs the general population was 1.65 (95% CI: 1.31, 2.08) and 1.56 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.78) respectively. Restricting follow-up period to after 2006, the aHR of lymphoma for patients with RA starting a first bDMARD vs bDMARD-naïve was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.47, 1.00), and for bDMARD treated vs patients with RA switching from one conventional synthetic DMARDs to another, aHR was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.73). There were no signals of different risks with any particular TNF inhibitor (TNFi) agent. We found no different lymphoma subtype pattern following bDMARD therapy., Conclusion: Treatment with bDMARDs, including both TNFi and non-TNFi bDMARDs, does not further increase the lymphoma risk in RA; instead, bDMARD treatment may actually reduce the excess lymphoma risk in RA., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: With the wide range of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) available for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and limited evidence to guide the choice for individual patients, we wished to evaluate whether patient characteristics influence the choice of bDMARD in clinical practice, and to quantify the extent to which this would bias direct comparisons of treatment outcome., Methods: Register-based study of all Swedish patients with RA initiating necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), rituximab, abatacept or tocilizumab in 2011-2015 as their first bDMARD (n=6481), or after switch from TNFi as first bDMARD (n=2829). Group differences in demographics, clinical characteristics and medical history were assessed in multivariable regression models. Predicted differences in safety and treatment outcomes were calculated as a function of patient characteristics, through regression modelling based on observed outcomes among patients with RA starting bDMARDs 2006-2010., Results: Patients starting non-TNFi were older than those starting TNFi, had lower socioeconomic status, higher disease activity and higher burden of diseases including malignancy, serious infections and diabetes. Differences were most pronounced at first bDMARD initiation. These factors were linked to treatment outcome independent of therapy, yielding worse apparent safety and effectiveness for non-TNFi biologics, most extreme for rituximab. Standardising to the age/sex distribution of the TNFi group reduced differences considerably., Conclusions: There was significant channelling of older and less healthy patients with RA to non-TNFi bDMARDs, in particular as first bDMARD. Whether this channelling represents a maximised benefit/risk ratio is unclear. Unless differences in age, medical history and disease activity are accounted for, they will substantially confound non-randomised comparative studies of available bDMARDs' safety and effectiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ARTIS has entered into agreements with Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis and UCB. Companies with products mentioned in this manuscript were given a courtesy review of the manuscript before publication, but were not involved in planning the study, performing the analysis or interpreting the results., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To estimate the risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) both with and without exposure to biological therapy and to directly compare the risks between therapies., Methods: Data from the Swedish National Population Registers, Tuberculosis Register and the Swedish Biologics Register were used to conduct a prospective population-based national cohort study (2002-2011). We estimated the rate of incident TB in the general population and in a cohort of biological-naïve and biological-exposed patients diagnosed with RA. Cox models were used to estimate HRs with particular attention to risks by calendar and follow-up time and individual biologics., Results: Compared to the general population, RA patients not exposed to biologicals had a fourfold increased risk of TB (HR 4.2; 95% CI 2.7 to 6.7), which did not decline over calendar time. In contrast, the risk of TB in the biological-exposed RA population decreased since 2002 compared with biological-naïve; from HR=7.9 (95% CI 3.3 to 18.9) in 2002-2006 to HR=2.4 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.1) in 2007-2011. The HRs for most recent exposure to adalimumab and infliximab compared with etanercept were 3.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 12.5) and 2.7 (95% CI 0.7 to 10.9), respectively, and the HR for etanercept compared with biological-naïve RA was 1.7 (95% CI 0.6 to 4.6)., Conclusions: In the past decade, the risk of TB has decreased among biological-exposed RA patients but remains higher than in biological-naïve RA patients. Most cases of TB in RA occur in biological-naïve RA patients, underscoring the elevated risk also in these patients., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: During the past decade, the position of biologics in the therapeutic armamentarium, the number of approved indications and the number of available biologics have changed. Available data on (long-term) safety might thus pertain to patient populations not comparable with contemporary patients. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which contemporary patients who start or switch biologic therapies are comparable with those patients who gave rise to the currently available data on effectiveness and safety., Methods: We identified all adult patients with RA (n=9612), PsA (n=1417) and other SpA (n=1652) initiating a first biologic therapy between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2008, registered in the Swedish Biologics Register (ARTIS), including information on demographics, disease characteristics and 1-year risk of first-line treatment discontinuation., Results: Over calendar time, measures of disease activity at start declined substantially for all indications, and diminished between first-, second- and third-line therapy starts. One-year risks of first-line therapy discontinuation increased. Switchers to anti-TNF and non-TNF biologics had different comorbidities. Despite <50% drug retention at 5 years, most patients remained exposed to some biologic., Conclusions: The trends in baseline characteristics and drug retention underscores that any effects of biologics, including comparison between different biologics, must be interpreted in light of the characteristics of the population treated. The observed differences further call for continued vigilance to properly evaluate the safety profiles of biologic treatments as they are currently used. Exposure to multiple biologics presents a challenge for attribution of long-term effects.