This systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the... Show moreThis systematic literature review (SLR) regarding the efficacy, duration of use and safety of glucocorticoids (GCs), was performed to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Studies on GC efficacy were identified from a separate search on the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A combined search was performed for the duration of use and safety of GCs in RA patients. Dose-defined and time-defined GC treatment of any dose and duration (excluding intra-articular GCs) prescribed in combination with other DMARDs were considered. Results are presented descriptively. Two included studies confirmed the efficacy of GC bridging as initial therapy, with equal efficacy after 2 years of initial doses of 30 mg/day compared with 60 mg/day prednisone. Based on a recently performed SLR, in clinical trials most patients starting initial GC bridging are able to stop GCs within 12 (22% patients continued on GCs) to 24 months (10% patients continued on GCs). The safety search included 12 RCTs and 21 observational studies. Well-known safety risks of GC use were confirmed, including an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, serious infections, diabetes and mortality. Data on cardiovascular outcomes were Inconsistent. Overall, safety risks increased with increasing dose and/or duration, but evidence on which dose is safe was conflicting. In conclusion, this SLR has confirmed the efficacy of GCs in the treatment of RA. In clinical trials, most patients have shown to be able to stop GCs within 12-24 months. Well-known safety risks of GC use have been confirmed, but with heterogeneity between studies. Show less
With the worldwide digitalisation of medical records, electronic health records (EHRs) have become an increasingly important source of real-world data (RWD). RWD can complement traditional study... Show moreWith the worldwide digitalisation of medical records, electronic health records (EHRs) have become an increasingly important source of real-world data (RWD). RWD can complement traditional study designs because it captures almost the complete variety of patients, leading to more generalisable results. For rheumatology, these data are particularly interesting as our diseases are uncommon and often take years to develop. In this review, we discuss the following concepts related to the use of EHR for research and considerations for translation into clinical care: EHR data contain a broad collection of healthcare data covering the multitude of real-life patients and the healthcare processes related to their care. Machine learning (ML) is a powerful method that allows us to leverage a large amount of heterogeneous clinical data for clinical algorithms, but requires extensive training, testing, and validation. Patterns discovered in EHR data using ML are applicable to real life settings, however, are also prone to capturing the local EHR structure and limiting generalisability outside the EHR(s) from which they were developed. Population studies on EHR necessitates knowledge on the factors influencing the data available in the EHR to circumvent biases, for example, access to medical care, insurance status. In summary, EHR data represent a rapidly growing and key resource for real-world studies. However, transforming RWD EHR data for research and for real-world evidence using ML requires knowledge of the EHR system and their differences from existing observational data to ensure that studies incorporate rigorous methods that acknowledge or address factors such as access to care, noise in the data, missingness and indication bias. Show less
Lauper, K.; Ludici, M.; Mongin, D.; Bergstra, S.A.; Choquette, D.; Codreanu, C.; ... ; Finckh, A. 2022
Background: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line... Show moreBackground: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers. Methods: In this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk. Results: We included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA. Conclusion: The adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i. Show less
