Do biologic drugs affect the need for and outcome of joint replacements in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? A register-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to study the incidence of joint replacements among biologic drug and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) users as well as to investigate the plausible effect of biologic treatment on survival of prostheses in patients with Rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The study population comprised 2 cohorts of patients [Register of biologic treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) and the Central Finland RA database] from 1999 to 2010. Records of joint replacements performed in the study population between 1980 and 2010 were retrieved from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Propensity score matching was used to equalize patient characteristics between biologics and DMARD users. The incidence rates of primary and revision operations were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyze prosthesis survival. RESULTS: Of the 2102 biologics and 2710 DMARD users identified from the registries, 1587 were included in both groups after the matching. Median follow-up times were 3.1 and 8.0 years, respectively. There were more primary operations per 100 patient years in the biologics (3.89, CI 95% 3.41-4.41) vs. DMARD (2.63, 2.35-2.94) group but slightly fewer revisions (0.65, 0.46-0.88 vs. 0.83, 0.68-1.01). Biologics users were more likely to receive a joint replacement to small joints (p < 0.001). The survival of the prostheses installed during or prior to follow-up was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of biologic drugs did not reduce the need for joint replacement surgery in patients with a similar on-medication disease activity. Despite possibly lower rate of revisions among biologic users, the durability of prostheses was not improved.

Anti-TNF therapy in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: the Finnish experience.

Biological therapy for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has led to improved disease control beyond that of conventional treatments. International recommendations encourage clinicians prescribing biological treatments to register patients in national registers to collect information on outcome and toxicity. Patients with AS (n = 229) from the Register of Biological Treatment in Finland (ROB-FIN) with severe disease of long duration were followed-up for up to 24 months. Due to an active disease, one or more concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were used by 86% at commencement of biological therapy. This add-on strategy with infliximab led to a rapid pain relief and improvement of patient's and physician's global assessments, C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and swollen and tender joint counts within 6 weeks. Concomitant use of NSAID and oral corticosteroid was reduced. Corresponding results were documented at 3 months with etanercept, which was more recently approved for the treatment of spondyloarthropathies. Seventy-nine percent of the patients were ASAS 20 responders. A subgroup of AS patients with only axial involvement (n = 46) responded correspondingly. The first biological drug was discontinued in only 7% due to lack of efficacy and in 6% due to adverse events. Anti-TNF agents, often used in combination with DMARDs, appeared to have persistent effectiveness and limited toxicity in a real-life clinical setting in a cohort of Finnish AS patients with severe disease and long disease duration.

Gender difference in the impact of type 2 diabetes on coronary heart disease risk.

OBJECTIVE: To explain the stronger effect of type 2 diabetes on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in women compared with men. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 1,296 nondiabetic subjects and 835 type 2 diabetic subjects aged 45-64 years without cardiovascular disease. The end points were CHD death and a major CHD event (CHD death or nonfatal myocardial infarction). The follow-up time was 13 years. RESULTS: Major CHD event rate per 1,000 person-years was 11.6 in nondiabetic men, 1.8 in nondiabetic women, 36.3 in diabetic men, and 31.6 in diabetic women. The diabetes-related hazard ratio for a major CHD event from the Cox model, adjusted for age and area of residence, was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9) in men and 14.4 (8.4-24.5) in women, and after further adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, 2.8 (2.0-3.7) and 9.5 (5.5-16.9), respectively. The burden of conventional risk factors in the presence of diabetes was greater in women than in men at baseline. Prospectively, elevated blood pressure, low HDL cholesterol, and high triglycerides contributed to diabetes-related CHD risk more in women than in men. However, after adjusting for conventional risk factors, a substantial proportion of diabetes-related CHD risk remained unexplained in both genders. CONCLUSIONS: The stronger effect of type 2 diabetes on the risk of CHD in women compared with men was in part explained by a heavier risk factor burden and a greater effect of blood pressure and atherogenic dyslipidemia in diabetic women.