Background: Evidence on the (long-term) safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in atopic dermatitis (AD) generated by real-world data is sparse.Objectives: To describe real-world reported... Show moreBackground: Evidence on the (long-term) safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in atopic dermatitis (AD) generated by real-world data is sparse.Objectives: To describe real-world reported adverse drug reactions (AEs) related to systemic immunomodulating therapy in patients with AD and to compare the incidence rates of AEs with the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs).Methods: We conducted an observational prospective multi-centre cohort study, using the TREAT NL registry. All severe AEs, AEs of special interest and serious AEs in adult and paediatric patients on systemic immunomodulating treatment (ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, dupilumab, tralokinumab, baricitinib and upadacitinib) were assessed. Incidences rates of all (potentially) drug-related AEs were standardized in patient years and compared to the cumulative incidences in the associated SmPCs.Results: We collected 422 patient years of safety data from 266 patients, of whom 129 (48.5%) reported a total of 224 (potentially) drug-related AEs. Compared to dupilumab's SmPC, higher incidence rates were found for four AEs (reported >= 5 times): eosinophilia, blepharitis, dry eyes and head and neck erythema (i.e. dupilumab facial redness). A higher incidence rate of fatigue was found in patients on oral methotrexate in our cohort compared to the SmPC. Two new drug-related AEs (reported >= 5 times) were found in patients on dupilumab, including non-infectious conjunctivitis and meibomian gland dysfunction.Conclusions: Real-world reported AEs captured in AD patient registries can add information on the estimated incidence of AEs and benefit clinical decision aids. Future studies using data derived from the TREAT NL registry combined with data from other registries within the TREAT Registry Taskforce will provide more information on (rare) AEs associated with immunomodulating therapy in AD patients. Show less
Nauta, J.F.; Hummel, Y.M.; Tromp, J.; Ouwerkerk, W.; Meer, P. van der; Jin, X.Y.; ... ; Voors, A.A. 2019
Aims Heart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure... Show moreAims Heart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Most patients with HFrEF have eccentric LV hypertrophy, but some have concentric LV hypertrophy. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics, biomarker patterns, and response to treatment of patients with HFrEF and eccentric vs. concentric LV hypertrophy. Methods and results We performed a retrospective post-hoc analysis including 1015 patients with HFrEF (LVEF <40%) from the multinational observational BIOSTAT-CHF study. LV geometry was classified using two-dimensional echocardiography. Network analysis of 92 biomarkers was used to investigate pathophysiologic pathways. Concentric LV hypertrophy was present in 142 (14%) patients, who were on average older and more likely hypertensive compared to those with eccentric LV hypertrophy. Network analysis revealed that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide was an important hub in eccentric hypertrophy, whereas in concentric hypertrophy, tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, urokinase plasminogen activator surface receptor, paraoxonase and P-selectin were central hubs. Up-titration of beta-blockers was associated with a mortality benefit in HFrEF with eccentric but not concentric LV hypertrophy (P-value for interaction <= 0.001). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, the hazard ratio for mortality was higher in concentric hypertrophy, but the interaction was not significant. Conclusion Patients with HFrEF with concentric hypertrophy have a clinical and biomarker phenotype that is distinctly different from those with eccentric hypertrophy. Patients with concentric hypertrophy may not experience similar benefit from up.-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers compared to patients with eccentric hypertrophy. Show less
