Publications

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

Abstract (Expand)

This study aimed at providing a current and nearly complete picture of the patterns of the initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with newly diagnosed RA. Based on ambulatory drug prescription data and physician billing claims data covering 87% of the German population, we assembled a cohort of incident RA patients aged 15-79 years (n = 54,896) and assessed the prescription frequency of total DMARDs, conventional synthetic (csDMARDs) and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) within the first year of disease. Using multiple logistic regression, we estimated the chance of early DMARD receipt based on age, sex, serotype and specialty of prescribing physician while controlling for region of residence. In total, 44% of incident RA patients received a DMARD prescription within the first year of disease. In multiple regression, younger patients (< 35 years) had 1.7-fold higher chances of receiving a csDMARD than patients aged >/= 65 years [odds ratio (OR): 1.65 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-1.80] and almost tenfold higher chances to receive a bDMARD [OR (95% CI) 9.5 (8.0-11.3)]. Seropositivity and a visit to a rheumatologist were positively associated with DMARD initiation [OR (95% CI) 2.8 (2.6-2.9) and 5.9 (5.6-6.2) for csDMARDs, respectively]. Based on data covering 87% of the German population, the present study revealed that less than half of incident RA patients receive DMARDs within the first year of disease and that marked differences exist according to age. The study highlights the importance of involving a rheumatologist early in the management of RA.

Authors: A. Steffen, J. Holstiege, K. Klimke, M. K. Akmatov, J. Batzing

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

In Germany, Tocilizumab (TCZ) is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis both in biologic-naive patients and those with previous failures of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The long-term effectiveness and retention rates of TCZ in patients with different numbers of prior bDMARD failures has rarely been investigated. We included 885 RA patients in the analyses, enrolled with the start of TCZ between 2009 and 2015 in the German biologics register RABBIT. Patients were stratified according to prior bDMARD failures: no prior bDMARD or 1, 2 or >/= 3 bDMARD failures. We applied Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox-regression to examine treatment adherence as well as linear mixed effects models to investigate effectiveness over 3 years of follow-up. Compared to biologic-naive patients, those with prior bDMARD failures at start of TCZ were younger but had significantly longer disease duration and more comorbidities. DAS28 at baseline and loss of physical function were highest in patients with >/= 3 bDMARD failures. During follow-up, patients with up to two bDMARD failures on average reached low disease activity (LDA, DAS28 < 3.2). Those with >/= 3 prior bDMARDs had a slightly lower response. However, after 3 years, nearly 50% of them achieved LDA. Treatment continuation on TCZ therapy was similar in patients with </= 2 bDMARD failures but significantly lower in those with >/= 3 bDMARD failures. TCZ seems to be similarly effective in patients with no, one or two prior bDMARD failures. The majority of patients achieved LDA already after 6 months and maintained it over a period of 3 years. TCZ proved effective even in the high-risk group of patients with more than two prior bDMARD failures.

Authors: L. Baganz, A. Richter, J. Kekow, A. Bussmann, A. Krause, C. Stille, J. Listing, A. Zink, A. Strangfeld

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

The treatment of rheumatic diseases with bioloics has significantly improved the prognosis of patients. Currently, there are 13 preparations available in Germany for the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These original preparations generally have-depending on the individual country-15 years of patent protection. As soon as the patent has expired, approved biosimilars can be brought into use. For the approval of a biosimilar, authorities such as the European Medical Agency or the American Food and Drug Administration require proof of the best possible comparability with respect to efficacy and safety in comparison to the original or reference product. Since 2015, biosimilars of inifliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab have been granted approval in the European Union, the USA, Japan and in other countries. Further biosimilar products for these reference products are in development for treatment in rheumatology. From a societal and medical point of view, this opens up the possibility to increase the availability of biopharmaceutical products for patients through lower prices. In Germany, this possibility has already occurred-statutory health insurance physicians have introduced quotas for biosimilars, which will ultimately decrease spending and healthcare costs. This can lead to price reductions of the original products, which has already happened in Germany. Biosimilars can be prescribed for new patients or as a change from the original to the generic drug. When switching, a distinction is made between individual switching (interchangeability), which is made in individual consultation between the physician and the patient, and nonmedical switching (substitution) made at the societal or governmental level, which is made in the context of health care cost containment, and then, for example, implemented at the pharmacy level. Preliminary data from Norway and Denmark are available for substitution on the basis of results from large studies or registries in which systematic changes were made. The previous conclusion was that this does not lead to new problems for the patients. The German Society for Rheumatology recognizes the advantages of introducing biosimilars in Germany, but recommends that their use be based primarily on a joint decision by the treating physician and patient.

Authors: J. Braun, H. M. Lorenz, U. Muller-Ladner, M. Schneider, H. Schulze-Koops, C. Specker, A. Strangfeld, U. Wagner, T. Dorner

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

The study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases. The task force comprised an expert group of specialists in rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology, and pharmacologists, patients and a regulator from ten countries. Four key topics regarding biosimilars were identified through a process of discussion and consensus. Using a Delphi process, specific questions were then formulated to guide a systematic literature review. Relevant English-language publications through November 2016 were searched systematically for each topic using Medline; selected papers and pertinent reviews were examined for additional relevant references; and abstracts presented at the 2015 and 2016 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) annual scientific meetings were searched for those about biosimilars. The experts used evidence obtained from these studies to develop a set of overarching principles and consensus recommendations. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were determined for each. By the search strategy, 490 references were identified. Of these, 29 full-text papers were included in the systematic review. Additionally, 20 abstracts were retrieved from the ACR and EULAR conference abstract databases. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations were generated, encompassing considerations regarding clinical trials, immunogenicity, extrapolation of indications, switching between bio-originators and biosimilars and among biosimilars, and cost. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation for each varied according to available published evidence. Five overarching principles and eight consensus recommendations regarding the evaluation and use of biosimilars to treat rheumatological diseases were developed using research-based evidence and expert opinion.

Authors: J. Kay, M. M. Schoels, T. Dorner, P. Emery, T. K. Kvien, J. S. Smolen, F. C. Breedveld, Diseases Task Force on the Use of Biosimilars to Treat Rheumatological

Date Published: 2018

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disease activity and treatment modalities have changed substantially. The current provision and developments in recent years are analyzed with annual data from the National Database of the Collaborative Arthritis Centers in Germany. METHODS: To analyze disease activity, diagnostics and treatment in RA patients in 2014 with regard to seropositivity and disease duration. Time trends from 2007-2014 are reported for disease activity (DAS28) distribution and biologic treatment. RESULTS: In 2014, a total of 8,084 RA patients were analyzed: 72 % were rheumatoid factor and/or ACPA positive, the mean age was 62 years and the mean disease duration 12 years. According to DAS28, 35.9 % were in remission, 19.2 % had low, 37.1 % moderate and 7.8 % high disease activity. An increase since 2007 was only observed in patients with a disease duration >2 years. Synthetic DMARDS were used for treatment in 78 %. Biologic treatment increased from 16 % (2007) to 27 % (2014). Especially those patients with a disease duration >5 years were treated more frequently with biologics. Seronegative patients had slightly less severe mean disease activity parameters. They were treated equally frequent with DMARDS but only half as often with biologics compared to seropositive patients. CONCLUSION: The use of biologics in RA patients has increased since 2007; however this was not observed in patients with short disease duration. Early intensive treatment adaption seems justified to improve disease activity in the large portion of patients who do not reach low disease activity under conventional DMARDs.

Authors: K. Albrecht, D. Huscher, T. Eidner, S. Kleinert, S. Spathling-Mestekemper, S. Bischoff, A. Zink

Date Published: 2017

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND: Unfavorable prognostic factors-high disease activity, early erosions, and autoantibodies-should be considered when making treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There are little data on the frequency of individual poor prognostic factors among RA patients in daily care. METHODS: Disease activity (Disease Activity Score, DAS28), erosions, antibodies against citrullinated peptides or rheumatoid factor (ACPA/RF+), previous treatment failure, inflammation markers, and functional disability (FFbH < 70) were defined as prognostic factors. Different treatment decision making situations were evaluated in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients from the early RA CAPEA cohort (n = 1059), and in patients from the biologics register RABBIT after failure of one (n = 2217) or more (n = 3280) conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs or one (n = 1134) or more (n = 795) biologic (b)DMARDs. With the national database of German arthritis centers (NDB), the frequency of these factors was analyzed according to treatment strata (no/1(st)/2(nd)/3(rd) DMARD; n = 5707). RESULTS: In DMARD-naive patients (CAPEA), 50% presented with DAS28 > 5.1, 64% were ACPA/RF+, 13% had erosions, and 37% functional disability (FFbH < 70). In RABBIT, 63 (1(st) csDMARD failure) to 81% (>/=2 bDMARD failures) were ACPA/RF+, 29 to 70% had erosions, 33 to 52% DAS28 > 5.1, and 41 to 66% had FFbH < 70, respectively. In the NDB, between 47 (DMARD-naive) and 82% (>/=2 previous DMARDs) were ACPA/RF+, 5 to 11%, had high disease activity under treatment (DAS28 > 5.1), and 26 to 50% had functional disability (FFbH < 70), respectively. CONCLUSION: With growing numbers of previous DMARD therapies, increasing proportions of patients have poor prognostic factors. This underlines the importance of these factors for a difficult-to-treat disease course.

Authors: K. Albrecht, A. Richter, Y. Meissner, D. Huscher, L. Baganz, K. Thiele, M. Schneider, A. Strangfeld, A. Zink

Date Published: 2017

Publication Type: Journal

Abstract

Not specified

Authors: K. Albrecht, D. Huscher

Date Published: 2017

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 ...