Impact of a Patient Support Program on time to discontinuation of adalimumab in Australian adult patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases-an observational study.

This observational study evaluated the impact of a sponsor company-provided Patient Support Program (PSP) on discontinuation of adalimumab in adult Australian patients eligible for Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS)-reimbursed adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), Crohn's Disease (CD), Ulcerative Colitis (UC), or Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS). Patients initiating adalimumab between May 2018 and September 2019 were enrolled into two prospective cohorts based on their decision to opt for or decline the PSP (PSP or non-PSP cohorts). In addition, a historical, retrospective Non-PSP cohort was established from the Services Australia 10% PBS dataset by extracting data of patients initiating adalimumab prior to the introduction of adalimumab PSPs and based on adalimumab PBS listing dates (AS: April 2007 to March 2009; PsA/RA: January 2007 to December 2008; CD: January 2009 to December 2010; HS and UC indications not included). Follow-up for all cohorts was 12 months. The primary endpoint was the time to discontinuation, compared between the prospective PSP cohort and the prospective or retrospective Non-PSP cohort. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the cohorts. A Cox proportional hazards model indicated no difference in time to discontinuation between the prospective PSP (n = 162) and non-PSP (n = 65) cohorts (HR [95% CI] = 1.256 [0.616-2.563], p = 0.5304). The 12-month adalimumab persistence rates (95% CI) were 78% (69%, 84%) and 82% (67%, 90%), respectively. In contrast, discontinuation was less likely in the prospective PSP (n = 151) compared with the retrospective non-PSP (n = 297) cohort (HR [95% CI] = 0.44 [0.28-0.68], p<0.001). The 12-month persistence rates (95% CI) were 81% (76%, 90%) and 61% (56%, 67%), respectively. Overall, this study suggests that optimal adalimumab persistence can be achieved with either a structured PSP or healthcare support from other sources, but this was not the case more than a decade ago.

The prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in rheumatology.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common in rheumatology due to the complex nature of managing chronic autoimmune diseases. To date there has been limited research into the impact of polypharmacy on rheumatology patients. In this article we reviewed the literature to characterize the prevalence of polypharmacy and its effect on patients. In addition, we have highlighted some key drug-drug interactions to consider involving DMARDs as well as complementary and alternative medicines. There is emerging evidence demonstrating that polypharmacy contributes to adverse outcomes and alters treatment response. This association is best described in RA and is less clear in other patient cohorts. It is also unclear whether polypharmacy is directly harmful or just a surrogate marker for other factors affecting outcomes. Rheumatologists should be aware of the risk of polypharmacy as well as specific drug-drug interactions that can occur in managing chronic autoimmune disease.

Upadacitinib in active ankylosing spondylitis: results of the 2-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled SELECT-AXIS 1 study and open-label extension.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has not been previously reported. METHODS: In SELECT-AXIS 1, patients receiving placebo were switched to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily at week 14 while patients initially randomised to upadacitinib continued their regimen through week 104. Efficacy was assessed using as-observed (AO) and non-responder imputation (NRI). RESULTS: Of 187 patients randomised, 144 patients (77%) completed week 104. Among patients receiving continuous upadacitinib, 85.9% (AO) and 65.6% (NRI) achieved Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response (ASAS40) at week 104. Similar magnitude of ASAS40 responses were observed among patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib (88.7% and 63.8%, respectively). The mean change from baseline to week 104 in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada MRI spine and sacroiliac joint inflammation scores were -7.3 and -5.3, respectively, in the continuous upadacitinib group and -7.9 and -4.9 in the placebo-to-upadacitinib switch group. The mean (95% CI) change from baseline to week 104 in the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score was 0.7 (0.3, 1.1) in the total group. Adverse event rate was 242.7/100 patient-years. No serious infections, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, lymphoma, non-melanoma skin cancer, or gastrointestinal perforations were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily showed sustained and consistent efficacy over 2 years for ASAS40 and other clinically relevant endpoints. A low rate of radiographic progression was observed and no new safety findings were observed.

Improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with risankizumab: analysis of the Phase 3 trial KEEPsAKE 2.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the impact of 24-week risankizumab (RZB) versus placebo (PBO) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response to one or two biologics (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). METHODS: Patients in the Phase 3 trial, KEEPsAKE 2, were randomised (1:1) to RZB 150 mg or PBO by subcutaneous injection. PROs assessed: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Patient's Assessment of Pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-PsA (WPAI-PsA). Least squares mean change from baseline at week 24 was compared between RZB versus PBO by mixed-effects repeated regression modelling. RESULTS: At week 24, RZB versus PBO treatment resulted in significant differences (95% CIs) in mean change from baseline in ranked secondary endpoints SF-36 physical component summary score (3.9 (2.4 to 5.3); p<0.001) and FACIT-Fatigue (2.2 (0.6 to 3.9); p=0.009) and improvements in pain (-8.1 (-12.8 to -3.5)), PtGA (-8.8 (-13.5 to -4.2)) and EQ-5D-5L index (0.08 (0.04 to 0.11)) and VAS (5.9 (1.9 to 9.8)) (all nominal p<0.01). More RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements from baseline at week 24 in 7 of 8 SF-36 subdomains (nominal p<0.05). At week 24, more RZB-treated versus PBO-treated patients reported improvements in 3 of 4 WPAI-PsA domains (nominal p≤0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, RBZ treatment resulted in improvements in pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life and ability to perform work in Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR patients with PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03671148.

Effect of upadacitinib on reducing pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: post hoc analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS). METHODS: Patients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%-60%, 35%-49% and 15%-34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points. CONCLUSION: Rapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

Value of Remission in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Targeted Review.

The treat-to-target strategy, which defines clinical remission as the primary therapeutic goal for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is a widely recommended treatment approach in clinical guidelines. Achieving remission has been associated with improved clinical outcomes, quality of life, and productivity. These benefits are likely to translate to reduced economic burden in terms of lower healthcare costs and resource utilization. As such, a literature review was conducted to better understand the economic value of remission. Despite the large heterogeneity found in RA-related economic outcomes across studies, patients in remission consistently had lower direct medical and indirect costs, less healthcare resource utilization, and greater productivity compared to those without remission. Remission was associated with 19-52% savings in direct medical costs and 37-75% savings in indirect costs. The economic value of remission should thus be considered in economic analyses of RA therapies to inform treatment and reimbursement decisions.

Biological Therapies for Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Overview for the Clinician.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and poses a substantial healthcare burden on both the individual and society. One of the most significant shifts in the RA therapeutic landscape has occurred with the introduction of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). There are five classes of bDMARDs currently available, each with a different molecular target and subtle differences in their efficacy and safety profile. This review also describes the "real-world" use of bDMARDs and how they fit into the overall RA treatment guidelines.

Pulmonary adverse events of small molecule JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors [smTKI, comprising mostly of Janus kinase (JAK) and to a lesser extent, spleen tyrosine kinase (SyK) inhibitors] modulate the cytokine receptor-mediated intracellular signal cascade, and are an effective treatment for autoimmune diseases and malignancies. As smTKI are novel, long-term safety is uncertain. Due to increasing use, characterization of their true adverse event profile is critical. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published trial data on the pulmonary and serious adverse effects of smTKIs in autoimmune disease. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Pneumotox databases were searched up to April 2019 for randomized controlled trials, observational studies and post marketing surveillance, comparing any smTKI with placebo or another therapy, or as monotherapy at different doses. Primary outcomes comprised of any respiratory complications including upper and lower respiratory tract infections (URTI, LRTI), influenza, pneumonia, opportunistic respiratory infections, drug-induced interstitial lung disease, pulmonary embolism and lung neoplasm. RESULTS: We identified 4667 citations for screening, and selected 319 studies for full text review. Seventy-nine studies were analysed, including 47 randomized controlled trials, 25 observational studies and seven post-marketing surveillance studies, comprising 159 652 participants. There were significantly increased risks of URTI [risk difference (RD) 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.05; P = 0.00; 36 studies, 14 724 participants], LRTI (RD 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.02; P = 0.02; 24 studies, 12 302 participants), influenza (RD 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01; P = 0.04; 22 studies, 10 684 participants), and pneumonia (RD 0.00; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01; P = 0.02; 33 studies, 15 511 participants). No increased risk was found for other respiratory complications, including pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: SmTKI increases the risk of non-opportunistic respiratory infections compared with placebo. The risk of any serious pulmonary adverse events is low.

Upadacitinib Versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: Results of a Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1-selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of <2.6 in the upadacitinib group compared to the placebo group at week 12; inhibition of radiographic progression was evaluated at week 26. The study was also designed and powered to test for the noninferiority and superiority of upadacitinib compared to adalimumab, as measured both clinically and functionally. RESULTS: At week 12, both primary end points were met in patients receiving upadacitinib compared to those receiving placebo (P ≤ 0.001). An ACR20 improvement response was achieved by 71% of patients in the upadacitinib group compared to 36% in the placebo group, and a DAS28-CRP score of <2.6 was observed in 29% of patients receiving upadacitinib compared to 6% of patients receiving placebo. Upadacitinib was superior to adalimumab based on the ACR50 response rate, achievement of a DAS28-CRP score of ≤3.2, change in pain severity score, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. At week 26, more patients receiving upadacitinib than those receiving placebo or adalimumab achieved low disease activity or remission (P ≤ 0.001). Radiographic progression was significantly inhibited in patients receiving upadacitinib and was observed in fewer upadacitinib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (P ≤ 0.001). Up to week 26, adverse events (AEs), including serious infections, were comparable between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups. The proportions of patients with serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were highest in the adalimumab group; the proportions of patients with herpes zoster and those with creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were highest in the upadacitinib group. Three malignancies, 5 major adverse cardiovascular events, and 4 deaths were reported among the groups, but none occurred in patients receiving upadacitinib. Six venous thromboembolic events were reported (1 in the placebo group, 2 in the upadacitinib group, and 3 in the adalimumab group). CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib was superior to placebo and adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms, and physical function in RA patients who were receiving background MTX. In addition, radiographic progression was significantly inhibited by upadacitinib as compared to placebo. The overall safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar to that of adalimumab, except for higher rates of herpes zoster and CPK elevations in patients receiving upadacitinib.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to csDMARDs and/or TNF inhibitors: an open-label study close to clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in clinical practice in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients in the 24-week, open-label ACT-SURE study who had at least a moderate EULAR response by week 24 and were from a participating country were eligible for this long-term extension (LTE); the patients continued to receive TCZ 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks as monotherapy or in combination with ≥ 1 csDMARD for up to an additional 108 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Effectiveness endpoints included Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) responses, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Of the 1102 patients who completed the core 24-week study, 934 participated in the LTE; the median exposure to TCZ was 64.3 weeks. From baseline to the end of the LTE, AEs and SAEs occurred in 90% and 9% of patients, respectively. The overall event rates (95% CI) of AEs and SAEs were 406.5 per 100 patient-years (PY) (395.5, 417.8) and 8.8 per 100 PY (7.3, 10.6), respectively. Mean (SD) improvement in DAS28 was 4.12 (1.18), P < 0.0001. The DAS28 remission rates, ACR response rates, and PRO scores were maintained during the LTE study. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, TCZ as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in patients with moderate to severe RA.

Tapering versus steady-state methotrexate in combination with tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, double-blind trial.

Objective: To explore whether tocilizumab + tapering MTX has comparable efficacy and safety vs tocilizumab + stable MTX in adult RA patients with inadequate response to MTX. Methods: This randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority study involved patients with severe active RA [28-joint DAS (DAS28) >5.1] who had initiated tocilizumab + MTX at the study start. Patients received open-label tocilizumab (8 mg/kg i.v. every 4 weeks) and open-label MTX. At week 24, patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response were randomized to group A (double-blind MTX taper) or group B (double-blind MTX maintenance); both arms continued open-label tocilizumab. Primary analysis was the proportion of patients maintaining good/moderate EULAR response from week 24 to 60. Results: The study stopped early due to low recruitment, although the predetermined non-inferiority criteria were still met; 427 patients were enrolled to the open-label phase at week 0. At week 24, EULAR good/moderate response was achieved in 272 individuals (64.4%) who were randomized, 136 in each arm (36% withdrew/were not eligible). Additionally, 45.0% achieved DAS28 ⩽3.2, 33.5% achieved remission (DAS28 <2.6) and 64.2% had a DAS28 change ⩾1.2. After week 24 randomization, the proportion of patients maintaining good/moderate EULAR response to week 60 was significantly greater for MTX taper vs stable MTX (76.5 vs 65.4%; P = 0.036), and since the lower limit of the 95% CI was >0.9, the pre-determined criteria for non-inferiority was fulfilled despite reduced recruitment. Safety analysis revealed no unexpected tocilizumab safety signals. Conclusions: Tapering MTX in patients with RA receiving tocilizumab was non-inferior to continuing stable MTX in maintaining a good/moderate EULAR response. There were no unexpected safety signals; tocilizumab and MTX therapy was generally well tolerated in both groups. Trial registration number: EudraCT 2011-005260-20.

Impact of Participation in the Adalimumab (Humira) Patient Support Program on Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Course: Results from the PASSION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with adalimumab (ADA) are offered a proprietary patient support program (PSP, AbbVie Care®). The main objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of ADA on RA treatment course over time in the context of PSP utilization. METHODS: PASSION was a 78-week post-marketing observational study of RA patients with an insufficient response to ≥1 DMARD newly initiating ADA in routine clinical care that was conducted in Europe, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Australia. One prior biologic DMARD was allowed. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; improvement of ≥0.22 compared to baseline) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at week 78. Additionally, multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated over time. Patients were categorized based on their participation in the PSP: ever (PSP users) vs. never (PSP non-users). Safety events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Overall, 42.8% of PSP users achieved the MCID in HAQ-DI at week 78 (improvement of at least 0.22 compared to baseline). From 1025 enrolled, 48.7% of patients were PSP users while treated with ADA. The percentage of patients achieving MCID in the HAQ-DI was higher in PSP users vs. PSP non-users (48.1 vs. 37.8%) at week 78 (p < 0.001, NRI). Most of the studied clinical outcomes and PROs showed significant improvements (p < 0.05) from baseline to week 78 favoring PSP users over PSP non-users. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who initiated ADA, improvements in clinical, functional, and PROs were achieved in real-world settings with significantly greater improvements among PSP users in comparison with PSP non-users. FUNDING: AbbVie. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01383421.

Update on biosimilars in rheumatology.

Biologic agents have become indispensable in the management of autoimmune disease particularly rheumatological conditions. The lives of countless individuals have been improved following treatment with these drugs. Unfortunately, their cost prohibits more widespread use around the globe. This critical issue has been addressed by the introduction of biosimilars into the market. These therapies have been developed to resemble the originator molecule as closely as possible and to increase competition in the therapy area thus allowing costs to be reduced. Our review is intended to offer an update on biosimilars including logistic considerations on their introduction into routine practice.

Immune reconstitution 20 years after treatment with alemtuzumab in a rheumatoid arthritis cohort: implications for lymphocyte depleting therapies.

BACKGROUND: Alemtuzumab, an anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, was administered to patients with RA between 1991 and 1994. We have followed a cohort of recipients since that time and previously reported significant delays in immune reconstitution. Here we report >20 years of follow-up data from this unique cohort. METHOD: Surviving alemtuzumab recipients were age, sex and disease duration matched with RA controls. Updated mortality and morbidity data were collected for alemtuzumab recipients. For both groups antigenic responses were assessed following influenza, Pneumovax II and combined diphtheria/tetanus/poliovirus vaccines. Circulating cytokines and lymphocyte subsets were also quantified. RESULTS: Of 16 surviving alemtuzumab recipients, 13 were recruited: 9 recipients underwent a full clinical assessment and 4 had case notes review only. Since our last review 10 patients had died from causes of death consistent with long-standing RA, and no suggestion of compromised immune function. Compared with controls the alemtuzumab cohort had significantly reduced CD4+ and CD8+ central memory T-cells, CD5+ B cells, naïve B cells and CD19+CD24hiCD38hi transitional (putative regulatory) B cells. Nonetheless vaccine responses were comparable between groups. There were significantly higher serum IL-15 and IFN-γ levels in the alemtuzumab cohort. IL-15 levels were inversely associated with CD4+ total memory and central memory T cells. CONCLUSION: After 20 years the immune system of alemtuzumab recipients continues to show differences from disease controls. Nonetheless mortality and morbidity data, alongside vaccination responses, do not suggest clinical immune compromise. As lymphodepleting therapies, including alemtuzumab, continue to be administered this work is important with regard to long-term immune monitoring and stages of immune recovery.

Tetrahydrobiopterin Supplementation Improves Endothelial Function But Does Not Alter Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic inflammatory condition associated with increased cardiovascular risk that may be due to underlying endothelial dysfunction and subsequent aortic stiffening. We hypothesized that supplementation with tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) would recouple endothelial nitric oxide synthase and thus improve endothelial function and consequently reduce aortic stiffness. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted 2 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover studies examining 2 separate regimens: an acute regimen, with a single dose of BH4 400 mg versus placebo (n=18), and a short-term regimen, composed of a 1-week treatment with BH4 400 mg once daily versus placebo (n=15). Flow-mediated dilatation and aortic pulse wave velocity were studied 4 times, before and after each treatment phase. Acute BH4 supplementation led to an improvement of flow-mediated dilatation, whereas placebo had no effect (mean±SD of effect difference 2.56±4.79%; P=0.03). Similarly, 1-week treatment with BH4 improved endothelial function, but there was no change with placebo (mean±SD of effect difference 3.50±5.05%; P=0.02). There was no change in aortic pulse wave velocity following acute or short-term BH4 supplementation or placebo (mean±SD of effect difference: acute 0.09±0.67 m/s, P=0.6; short-term 0.03±1.46 m/s, P=0.9). CONCLUSION: Both acute and short-term supplementation with oral BH4 improved endothelial function but not aortic stiffness. This result suggests that BH4 supplementation may be beneficial for patients with rheumatoid arthritis by improving endothelial dysfunction and potentially reducing risk of cardiovascular disease. There appears to be no causal relationship between endothelial function and aortic stiffness, suggesting that they occur in parallel, although they may share common risk factors such as inflammation.

A Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Non-Adherence to Treatment for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence impacts negatively on patient health outcomes and has associated economic costs. Understanding drivers of treatment adherence in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is key for the development of effective strategies to tackle non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with treatment non-adherence across diseases in three clinical areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in PubMed, Science Direct, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1980 to February 14, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if they included patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, or psoriasis and included statistics to examine associations of factors with non-adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by the first reviewer using a standardized 23-item form and verified by a second/third reviewer. Quality assessment was carried out for each study using a 16-item quality checklist. RESULTS: 73 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Demographic or clinical factors were not consistently associated with non-adherence. Limited evidence was found for an association between non-adherence and treatment factors such as dosing frequency. Consistent associations with adherence were found for psychosocial factors, with the strongest evidence for the impact of the healthcare professional-patient relationship, perceptions of treatment concerns and depression, lower treatment self-efficacy and necessity beliefs, and practical barriers to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While examined in only a minority of studies, the strongest evidence found for non-adherence were psychosocial factors. Interventions designed to address these factors may be most effective in tackling treatment non-adherence.