Risk factors for losing hepatitis B virus surface antibody in patients with HBV surface antigen negative/surface antibody positive serostatus receiving biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a nested case-control study

Abstract Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation consequent to immunosuppressive therapy is an increasingly prevalent problem with serious clinical implications. Treatment with biologic agents conduces to the loss of protective antibody to HBV surface antigen (anti-HBs), which significantly increases the risk of HBV reactivation. Hence, we investigated the risk factors for losing anti-HBs in patients with rheumatic diseases and HBV surface antigen negative/anti-HBs positive (HBsAg-/anti-HBs+) serostatus during treatment with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods: Using a nested case-control design, we prospectively enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis/psoriasis, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, who were treated with biologic DMARDs at Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan, from January 2013 to June 2019 and had HBsAg-/anti-HBs+ serostatus; the analytic sample excluded all patients with HBsAg+ or anti-HBs- serostatus. Anti-HBs titers were monitored 6-monthly and cases were defined as anti-HBs < 10 mIU/ml during follow-up. Cases were matched one- to-all with controls with anti-HBs ≥ 10 mIU/ml on the same ascertainment date and equivalent durations of biologic DMARDs treatment (control patients could be resampled and could also become cases during follow-up). Between-group characteristics were compared and risk factors for anti-HBs loss were investigated by conditional logistic regression analyses. Results: Among 294 eligible patients, 23 cases were matched with 311 controls. The incidence of anti-HBs loss was ∼ 2.7%/person-year during biologic DMARDs treatment. Besides lower baseline anti-HBs titer (risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97), cases were significantly more likely than controls to have diabetes mellitus (risk ratio 4.76, 95% CI 1.48-15.30) and chronic kidney disease (risk ratio 14.00, 95% CI 2.22-88.23) in univariate analysis. Risk factors remaining significantly associated with anti-HBs loss in multivariate analysis were lower baseline anti-HBs titer (adjusted risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) and chronic kidney disease (adjusted risk ratio 45.68, 95% CI 2.39-871.5). Conclusions: Besides lower baseline anti-HBs titer, chronic kidney disease also strongly predicts future anti-HBs negativity in patients with HBsAg-/anti-HBs+ serostatus who receive biologic DMARDs to treat rheumatic diseases. Patients with low anti-HBs titer (≤ 100 mIU/ml) and/or chronic kidney disease should be monitored during biologic DMARDs therapy, to enable timely prophylaxis to preempt potential HBV reactivation.

Prescribing pattern and adverse drug effects monitoring of anti-rheumatoid drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a tertiary care hospital

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common disease that causes substantial morbidity in most patients and premature mortality in many. All the drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis show significant toxicity and hence it is important to monitor the drugs for adverse drug reaction. This study will estimate the prescribing pattern and bring out the possible adverse drug reactions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Methods: This study included 200 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who fulfilled the study criteria were observed for three months. Their prescriptions were collected and analysed. The symptoms of adverse drug reaction were documented through questionnaire. The causality assessment was done by WHO-UMC assessment scale and severity by using modified Hartwig-Seigel severity assessment scale.Results: This study showed most of the patients were female (86%). Majority of them were in age group of 51-60 years. Average number of drugs per prescription was 10.57. Out of 200 patients, 2% were on single DMARD and 50.5% were on two DMARDs. 40% and 7.5% were taking three and four DMARDs respectively. A total of 450 adverse drug reactions were reported, out of which 68.4% due to steroid,12.5% due to DMARDs and 19.1 due to use of NSAIDs, DMARDs and glucocortisteroids. Chloroquine maculopathy occurred in 3 patients and elevated liver enzymes due to methotrexate in 3 patients, which necessitated DMARD withdrawal. Most patients had 1-3 ADRs. 6% of ADRs were severe and 54% belongs to probable category of causality assessment.Conclusions: Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is mainly based on DMARDs, glucocorticosteroids and NSAIDs. So, occurrence of ADR is much common. Proper monitoring of therapy and timely modification of drugs and lifestyle can reduce the ADR occurrence.

Clinical deep remission and related factors in a large cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

Background:@#Clinical remission is the treatment target in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to investigate clinical remission and related factors in a large cohort of patients with RA.@*Methods:@#This study composed of 342 patients with RA. Data were collected by face-to-face interview of 1049 patients with RA who visited the Department of Rheumatology of three teaching hospitals from September 2015 to May 2016. The patients with RA were clinically assessed by rheumatologists and a four-page questionnaire was completed on site. Subsequently, patients fulfilled remission criteria were further analyzed. The practicability of different definitions of remission of RA was rated by a panel of rheumatologists. Sustained intensive disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment was defined as a combination treatment with two or more DMARDs for at least 6 months.@*Results:@#In this cohort of 342 patients with RA, the proportions of patients achieving remission were 38.0%, 29.5%, 24.9%, 21.1%, 19.0%, 18.1%, and 17.0%, based on criteria of disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) using CRP (DAS28-CRP), DAS28 using ESR (DAS28-ESR), routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID-3), Boolean, simplified disease activity index (SDAI), clinical disease activity index, and the newly described clinical deep remission (CliDR), respectively. Boolean and CliDR are the best in practicability scored by rheumatologists (7.5 and 8.0, respectively). Compared with the non-sustained intensive group, sustained intensive treatment with DMARDs yielded higher remission rates of 25.6%, 23.8%, and 21.3% in patients with RA based on Boolean (χ2=3.937, P=0.047), SDAI (χ2=4.666, P=0.031), and CliDR criteria (χ2=4.297, P=0.038). The most commonly prescribed conventional synthesized DMARDs (csDMARDs) in patients with RA was leflunomide, followed by methotrexate, and hydroxychloroquine. Compared with the non-remission group, patients achieving remission had a longer median duration of DMARDs (45.0 [22.8–72.3] months, Z=-2.295, P=0.022).@*Conclusions:@#The findings in this study indicated that clinical deep remission is achievable in patients with RA. Sustained intensive DMARD treatment is needed to achieve a better outcome in RA.

The specialist physician's approach to rheumatoid arthritis in South Africa

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is expected to increase in Africa and South Africa. Due to the low numbers of rheumatologists in South Africa, specialist physicians also have to care for patients with RA. Furthermore several new developments have taken place in recent years which improved the management and outcome of RA. Classification criteria were updated, assessment follow-up tools were refined and above all, several new biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were developed. Therefore it is imperative for specialist physicians to update themselves with the newest developments in the management of RA. This article provides an overview of the newest developments in the management of RA in the South African context. This approach may well apply to countries with similar specialist to patient ratios and disease profiles.

Recent trends and guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis / 대한내과학회지

The paradigm for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has shifted in the past two decades. The appreciation of increased mortality in patients with RA and the poor outcomes with conventional therapy led to the concept of the early aggressive treatment to suppress ongoing inflammation and prevent joint injury. RA results from acute and chronic inflammation in the synovium associated with proliferative and destructive processes in the joint. Affected areas may either heal without structural defects, or be irreversibly damaged if inflammation is severe and does not remit. Therefore, measures aimed at identifying early active disease and ameliorating inflammation are essential and may be highly effective in modifying disease outcome. The goal of treatment is to achieve and maintain a state of remission or, at the least, a state of low disease activity, in order to prevent joint damage and disability. This requires the initiation of treatment early in the disease process, as well as vigilant monitoring throughout the course of disease, with prompt readjustment of therapy, for flares of activity and for medication toxicity. This aggressive approach has been made possible by the increasing number of effective non-biologic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Recent trends and guidelines for the management of RA are presented here.

Leflunomide: A New Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug / 대한류마티스학회지

Leflunomide is a novel, isoxazol based disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its mechanism differs from other DMARDs in that it inhibits de novo pyrimidine synthesis by inhibiting the enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH). It is a pro-drug and undergoes rapid conversion to its active form in vivo, A77-1726. A77-1726 inhibits the mitochondrial enzyme DHODH, which plays a key role in the de novo synthesis of pyrimidine ribonucleotide uridine monophosphate (rUMP). Leflunomide prevents clonal expansion of activated lymphocytes by interfering with the cell cycle progression due to inadequate production of rUMP and utilizing mechanisms involving p53. The relative lack of toxicity of A77-1726 on non-lymphoid cells may be due to the ability of these cells to fulfill their ribonucleotide requirements by use of salvage pyrimidine pathway, which makes them less dependent on de novo synthesis. Several phase II clinical trials of patients with RA revealed that leflunomide was effective and well tolerated. Large-scale phase III clinical trials have shown that leflunomide (20mg/day) provided a statistically significant clinical benefit and prevention of radiographic progression in comparison to placebo. The clinical benefits of leflunomide were similar to or greater than methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Now, many multi-national studies are in progress and planning, including combination therapy with other DMARD. In future, those studies will provide us more information about the effectiveness and potential adverse effect of leflunomide.

Leflunomide: A New Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug / 대한류마티스학회지

Leflunomide is a novel, isoxazol based disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its mechanism differs from other DMARDs in that it inhibits de novo pyrimidine synthesis by inhibiting the enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH). It is a pro-drug and undergoes rapid conversion to its active form in vivo, A77-1726. A77-1726 inhibits the mitochondrial enzyme DHODH, which plays a key role in the de novo synthesis of pyrimidine ribonucleotide uridine monophosphate (rUMP). Leflunomide prevents clonal expansion of activated lymphocytes by interfering with the cell cycle progression due to inadequate production of rUMP and utilizing mechanisms involving p53. The relative lack of toxicity of A77-1726 on non-lymphoid cells may be due to the ability of these cells to fulfill their ribonucleotide requirements by use of salvage pyrimidine pathway, which makes them less dependent on de novo synthesis. Several phase II clinical trials of patients with RA revealed that leflunomide was effective and well tolerated. Large-scale phase III clinical trials have shown that leflunomide (20mg/day) provided a statistically significant clinical benefit and prevention of radiographic progression in comparison to placebo. The clinical benefits of leflunomide were similar to or greater than methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Now, many multi-national studies are in progress and planning, including combination therapy with other DMARD. In future, those studies will provide us more information about the effectiveness and potential adverse effect of leflunomide.