Publications

What is a Publication?
213 Publications visible to you, out of a total of 213

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND: Healthcare of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Germany has mainly been evaluated in the past in RA cohorts from specialized arthritis centers. This study investigated rheumatological care on a population basis, using claims data from a nationwide statutory health insurance fund (BARMER GEK) in combination with patient-reported outcomes from a questionnaire survey of insured persons with RA. METHODS: Data from insurants aged 18-79 years with M05 (seropositive RA) or M06 (other RA, ICD-10) diagnoses were analyzed concerning diagnostics, medication and prescribing physician. A 31-item questionnaire covering patient reported diagnosis, healthcare utilization and burden of illness was sent to a stratified random sample of 6193 insured persons. Data from the respondents regarding rheumatological care and disease status were evaluated. RESULTS: In 2013 and 2014, a total of 96,921 adults with M05 or M06 diagnosis were insured. The questionnaire was answered by 51% of the sample and of these 81% confirmed the RA diagnosis. RA had been diagnosed by a rheumatologist in 59% of the cases, 70% reported moderate to severe pain and 46% had functional disability. Between at least 40% (claims data) and up to 68% (respondents) were in specialized rheumatological care. Treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) was 61% (claims data) and 63% (respondents) in persons in rheumatological care but only 18% outside rheumatological care. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that specialized rheumatological care is required to provide adequate treatment for patients with RA in Germany. Patients with higher age and patients with M06 diagnosis had less drug prescriptions and were less frequently treated by rheumatologists.

Authors: K. Albrecht, A. Luque Ramos, J. Callhoff, F. Hoffmann, K. Minden, A. Zink

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of diabetes in patients with RA and the impact of diabetes on self-reported outcomes and health care. METHODS: RA patients between the ages of 18 and 79 years were randomly selected from a nationwide statutory health insurance fund and were surveyed about rheumatological care and disease burden. Comorbid diabetes (E10-14) was analysed regarding age, sex, BMI and socioeconomic status. Disease burden, comorbidity and prescriptions were compared in RA patients with and without diabetes. Predictors of rheumatological care were identified by multivariate regression. RESULTS: Of the 2535 RA patients, 498 (20%) had diabetes. Diabetes was more frequent in males, in older patients, in patients with a higher BMI and in those with a lower socioeconomic status. All disease outcomes were poorer in RA-diabetes patients and were mainly attributable to a higher BMI. RA-diabetes patients received less DMARDs (40% vs 48%) and had more hospital stays (41% vs 30%) than patients without diabetes (all P < 0.05). Rates of cardiovascular disease (35% vs 15%), depression (39% vs 26%) and renal failure (23% vs 8%) were higher in RA-diabetes patients (all P < 0.0001). They were less frequently treated by rheumatology specialists: 57% vs 67%; odds ratio = 0.64 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.92), after controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diabetes in patients with RA is high and is associated with known sociodemographic factors. More than 40% of patients with RA and diabetes were not under rheumatological care even though they reported a high disease burden, were frequently hospitalized and often presented with further comorbidities.

Authors: K. Albrecht, A. Luque Ramos, F. Hoffmann, I. Redeker, A. Zink

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract

Not specified

Authors: K. Albrecht, A. Zink

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review was to give an update on treatment modalities for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, or shortly myositis, excluding the subgroup inclusion body myositis, based on a literature survey on therapies used in myositis. Few controlled trials have been performed in patients with myositis; therefore, we also included a summary of open-label trials, case series, and case reports. RECENT FINDINGS: Glucocorticoid (GC) in high doses is still the first-line treatment of patients with myositis. There is a general recommendation to combine GCs with another immunosuppressive agent in the early phase of disease to better control disease activity and possibly to reduce the risk for GC-related side effects. Furthermore, combining pharmacological treatment with individualized and supervised exercise can be recommended based on evidence. There is some evidence for the effect of rituximab in patients with certain myositis-specific autoantibodies, whereas other biologic agents are currently being tested in clinical trials. SUMMARY: Immunosuppressive treatment in combination with exercise is recommended for patients with myositis to reduce disease activity and improve muscle performance. Subgrouping of patients into clinical and serological subtypes may be a way to identify biomarkers for response to specific immunosuppressive and biological agents and should be considered in future trials.

Authors: S. Barsotti, I. E. Lundberg

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND: Medication-based strategies to treat rheumatoid arthritis are crucial in terms of outcome. They aim at preventing joint destruction, loss of function and disability by early and consistent inhibition of inflammatory processes. OBJECTIVE: Achieving consensus about evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Germany. METHODS: Following a systematic literature research, a structured process among expert rheumatologists was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: The results of the consensus process can be summed up in 6 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. There are several new issues compared to the version of 2012, such as differentiated adjustments to the therapeutic regime according to time point and extent of treatment response, the therapeutic goal of achieving remission as assessed by means of the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) as well as the potential use of targeted synthetic DMARDs (JAK inhibitors) and suggestions for a deescalating in case of achieving a sustained remission. Methotrexate still plays the central role at the beginning of the treatment and as a combination partner in the further treatment course. When treatment response to methotrexate is inadequate, either switching to or combining with another conventional synthetic DMARD is an option in the absence of unfavourable prognostic factors. Otherwise biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs are recommended according to the algorithm. Rules for deescalating treatment with glucocorticoids and-where applicable-DMARDs give support for the management of patients who have reached a sustained remission. DISCUSSION: The new guidelines set up recommendations for RA treatment in accordance with the treat-to-target principle. Modern disease-modifying drugs, now including also JAK inhibitors, are available in an algorithm.

Authors: C. Fiehn, J. Holle, C. Iking-Konert, J. Leipe, C. Weseloh, M. Frerix, R. Alten, F. Behrens, C. Baerwald, J. Braun, H. Burkhardt, G. Burmester, J. Detert, M. Gaubitz, A. Gause, E. Gromnica-Ihle, H. Kellner, A. Krause, J. Kuipers, H. M. Lorenz, U. Muller-Ladner, M. Nothacker, H. Nusslein, A. Rubbert-Roth, M. Schneider, H. Schulze-Koops, S. Seitz, H. Sitter, C. Specker, H. P. Tony, S. Wassenberg, J. Wollenhaupt, K. Kruger

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

INTRODUCTION: To describe treatment patterns in newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a large, nationally representative managed-care database. METHODS: Newly diagnosed RA patients were identified from 07/01/2006-08/31/2014. Patients had >/= 1 RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist, or >/= 2 non-rheumatologist RA diagnoses >/= 30 days apart, or RA diagnosis followed by a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) prescription fill within 1 year. Patients were >/= 18 years old at index (earliest date fulfilling diagnostic criteria) and had >/= 6 and 12 months of pre- and post-index health plan enrollment, respectively. Patterns of DMARD treatment, including conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi, and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), were captured during follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 63,101 RA patients identified, 73% were female; mean age was 57 years. During an average of 3.5 +/- 2.1 years of follow-up, 45% of patients never received a DMARD, 52% received a csDMARD (94 +/- 298 mean +/- SD days from index), 16% a TNFi (315 +/- 448 days), 4% a non-TNFi (757 +/- 660 days), and < 1% a JAKi. Among DMARD recipients, the most common treatment patterns were: receiving csDMARDs only (68%), adding a TNFi as second-line therapy after initiation of a csDMARD (12%), and receiving only a TNFi (6%) during follow-up. Among those not on DMARDs, the all-cause usage of an opioid was 56% and 19% had chronic opioid use (>/= 180 days supplied). CONCLUSIONS: Despite American College of Rheumatology recommendations for DMARD treatment of RA, nearly half of newly diagnosed RA patients received no DMARD therapy during follow-up. These data identify a treatment gap in RA management. FUNDING: Eli Lilly & Company.

Authors: D. M. Kern, L. Chang, K. Sonawane, C. J. Larmore, N. N. Boytsov, R. A. Quimbo, J. Singer, J. T. Hinton, S. J. Wu, A. B. Araujo

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

AIMS: The EuroMyositis Registry facilitates collaboration across the idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) research community. This inaugural report examines pooled Registry data. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of IIM cases from 11 countries was performed. Associations between clinical subtypes, extramuscular involvement, environmental exposures and medications were investigated. RESULTS: Of 3067 IIM cases, 69% were female. The most common IIM subtype was dermatomyositis (DM) (31%). Smoking was more frequent in connective tissue disease overlap cases (45%, OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.90, p=0.012). Smoking was associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65, p=0.013), dysphagia (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.77, p=0.001), malignancy ever (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.33, p<0.001) and cardiac involvement (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.60, p<0.001).Dysphagia occurred in 39% and cardiac involvement in 9%; either occurrence was associated with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.23, p<0.001). HAQ scores were also higher in inclusion body myositis cases (adjusted OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.52 to 5.90, p<0.001). Malignancy (ever) occurred in 13%, most commonly in DM (20%, OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.57, p<0.001).ILD occurred in 30%, most frequently in antisynthetase syndrome (71%, OR 10.7, 95% CI 8.6 to 13.4, p<0.001). Rash characteristics differed between adult-onset and juvenile-onset DM cases (’V’ sign: 56% DM vs 16% juvenile-DM, OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.36, p<0.001). Glucocorticoids were used in 98% of cases, methotrexate in 71% and azathioprine in 51%. CONCLUSION: This large multicentre cohort demonstrates the importance of extramuscular involvement in patients with IIM, its association with smoking and its influence on disease severity. Our findings emphasise that IIM is a multisystem inflammatory disease and will help inform prognosis and clinical management of patients.

Authors: J. B. Lilleker, J. Vencovsky, G. Wang, L. R. Wedderburn, L. P. Diederichsen, J. Schmidt, P. Oakley, O. Benveniste, M. G. Danieli, K. Danko, N. T. P. Thuy, M. Vazquez-Del Mercado, H. Andersson, B. De Paepe, J. L. deBleecker, B. Maurer, L. J. McCann, N. Pipitone, N. McHugh, Z. E. Betteridge, P. New, R. G. Cooper, W. E. Ollier, J. A. Lamb, N. S. Krogh, I. E. Lundberg, H. Chinoy, contributors all EuroMyositis

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Powered by
(v.1.17.3)

(LDH: v0.3.4)

Copyright © 2008 - 2023 The University of Manchester and HITS gGmbH
Additions copyright ...