Treatment patterns among patients with rheumatic disease (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and undifferentiated arthritis (UnA)) treated with subcutaneous TNF inhibitors.

The aim was to describe the real-world treatment persistence of subcutaneous TNF inhibitors (TNFi) for patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease newly initiating treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD). This was a retrospective cohort study that extracted data for new users of TNFi between 1 August 2010 and 31 August 2016 from the Australian Optimising Patient outcome in Australian RheumatoLogy (OPAL) registry. Patients were 1:1 propensity-score matched with golimumab based on their age, sex, year of index, C-reactive protein level, baseline treatment combination and disease. Treatment persistence was calculated. Data from 3749 patients were extracted (adalimumab n = 1518; certolizumab n = 298; etanercept n = 1068; golimumab n = 865). The mean (SD) ages of patients were 51.7 (14.2) years for adalimumab, 53.7 (14.0) years for certolizumab, 52.8 (14.3) years for etanercept and 52.3 (14.6) years for golimumab, with disease durations 7.7 (10.5), 8.8 (9.2), 8.1 (10.4) and 7.3 (9.7) years, respectively. Two thirds of the patients were women. There was no significant difference in treatment persistence by treatment in the overall population (adalimumab 33.6 [95% CI 28.6-40.7], certolizumab 24.8 [95% CI 21.3-42.1], etanercept 27.6 [95% CI 23.4-36.5], golimumab 30.3 [95% CI 23.26-36.5]; months, p = 0.545), or in the propensity score-matched population. No safety signals were detected. In this real-world biologic-naïve Australian inflammatory rheumatic disease cohort treated with subcutaneous TNF inhibitors during the period 2010-2016, there was no difference in treatment persistence between agents.

Psoriatic arthritis treatment regimens, therapy duration and reasons for cessation in the biologics era: a multi-centre Australian study.

AIM: To describe the treatment regimens, duration of therapy and reasons for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) cessation in a large psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cohort. METHODS: A retrospective non-interventional multi-centre study using Audit4 electronic medical records, with de-identified, routinely collected clinical data from rheumatology practices in the OPAL consortium (Optimising Patient outcomes in Australian rheumatoLogy) during November 2015. Baseline characteristics, type and duration of conventional and biologic DMARDs (cDMARD and bDMARD, respectively), disease activity (Disease Activity Score of 28 joints C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP]), and reasons for treatment cessation were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 3422 rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA patients were included: 60% female, mean age 54 years and disease duration 10 years. Of patients with treatment recorded (n = 2948), 46% were on cDMARD monotherapy, 19% bDMARD monotherapy, 13% combination bDMARD and cDMARDs, 11% combination cDMARDs and 10% no DMARDs. Of those with DAS28-CRP results (n = 494), the highest mean DAS28-CRP was 3.32 on combination cDMARDs, and the lowest was 2.19 on bDMARD monotherapy. Median duration on cDMARD monotherapy was 33.5 months (n = 2232), on bDMARD monotherapy 110.1 months (n = 751), on combination bDMARD and cDMARDs 68.5 months (n = 559). The most common reasons for cessation of cDMARD monotherapy was adverse reactions (41%), for bDMARD monotherapy lack of efficacy (26%), and for combination bDMARD and cDMARDs treatment completed or no longer required (37%). CONCLUSION: Most PsA patients were prescribed DMARD therapies with a large proportion receiving cDMARDs. Patients on combination cDMARD therapies had the highest DAS28-CRP results. Adverse reactions were the most common reason for cessation of cDMARD monotherapy, whereas for bDMARD monotherapy it was lack of efficacy.

The CEDAR Study: A Longitudinal Study of the Clinical Effects of Conventional DMARDs and Biologic DMARDs in Australian Rheumatology Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To observe the choices of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Australian routine clinical practice, to assess treatment survival and determine the effect of cDMARDs/bDMARDs on disease activity. METHODS: Routinely collected, deidentified clinical data was sourced from 20 Australian rheumatology practices. RA patients aged ≥18 years, who had received cDMARDs/bDMARDs and a recorded subsequent visit, were included. A linear mixed model was used to determine the change over time and the percentage reduction in disease activity was summarized. RESULTS: 12,526 RA patients were included: 72% females, mean age 62 years. cDMARDs and bDMARDs were used in 92% and 30% of patients, respectively. The most commonly prescribed cDMARD was methotrexate (76% patients); median time to stopping treatment was 337 months [95% CI: 279-ND]. Etanercept was the most commonly prescribed bDMARD (12% patients); median time to stopping treatment was 79 months [95% CI: 57-93]. Of 5,341 patients with a first change in medication (cDMARD or bDMARD), 87% had therapy escalation and 13% deescalation. Reduction in DAS28-ESR, 6-month post-DMARDs initiation ranged from 3%, adalimumab, to 14%, leflunomide and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In this large Australian cohort of unselected community RA patients, the choices of cDMARDs/bDMARDs are aligned with current international guidelines.

Longitudinal study of clinical prognostic factors in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the PREDICT study.

AIM: To assess the association between baseline clinical prognostic factors and subsequent Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) remission in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were collected using point of care clinical software from participating rheumatology centres. Patients aged 18 years or over whose date of clinical onset of RA was within the previous 12-24 months, who had at least 6 months of follow-up data and a DAS28-ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) score recorded between 12 and 24 months from first being seen for RA were included. Data collected included baseline demographics, mode of disease onset, pattern of joint involvement at onset, smoking status, DAS28, rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), time from symptom onset to presentation and disease activity at baseline. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression of DAS28-ESR remission between 12 and 24 months after first assessment were performed. RESULTS: Data from 1017 patients were analyzed: 70% female; mean age 60 years (SD: 14.7); 70% RF-positive, 58% ACPA-positive. The strongest age and sex adjusted baseline predictors of DAS28-ESR remission at 12-24 months were remission at baseline (odds ratio [OR]: 4.49, 95% CI: 2.17-9.29, P < 0.001), being male (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.46-4.01, P < 0.001), abstaining from alcohol (P < 0.001) and being lower weight (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00, P = 0.015). There was no statistically significant association between joint onset patterns, mode of onset, RF, ACPA or smoking status. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, patients with early RA at risk of not achieving remission include those with high disease activity at baseline, women, those who drink alcohol and those with higher body weight.

Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Australian OPAL Cohort Show Significant Improvement in Disease Activity over 5 Years: A Multicenter Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate disease activity trends in a large cohort of Australian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from 2009 to 2014. METHODS: This is a multicenter, cross-sectional, noninterventional study of patients with RA treated in Australia. Patients with RA treated at participating OPAL (Optimising Patient outcome in Australian RheumatoLogy) clinics were included in the study. Data, deidentified by patient, clinic, and clinician, were identified using a purpose-written electronic medical record. Patient demographics, disease onset, medications, and disease measures were analyzed. The Disease Activity Score at 28 joints (DAS28) was used to classify patients into the disease activity states of remission: low disease activity, moderate disease activity (MDA), and high disease activity. Choice of therapy was at the discretion of the treating clinician. RESULTS: At the time of analysis, the database contained 15,679 patients with RA, 8998 of whom fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 63.2 years, mean disease duration was 13.8 years, and the majority were women (72.4%). A total of 37,274 individual DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate scores were recorded for the 8998 patients. The frequency of remission increased significantly from 36.7% in 2009 to 53.5% in 2014 (p < 0.001), and that of MDA decreased from 33% (2009) to 22.2% (2014). The use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the patients in remission increased from 17% in 2009 to 36.9% in 2014. CONCLUSION: Contemporary management of RA in Australia shows improvements in disease activity toward the target of remission over a 5-year period.

Barriers to optimal disease control for rheumatoid arthritis patients with moderate and high disease activity.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate barriers that prevent rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from achieving Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) scores within the current recommended levels for low disease activity (LDA) or clinical remission (DAS28-ESR score <3.2). METHODS: Using an electronic medical record program, clinical data for RA patients treated in Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology clinics, with a recorded DAS28-ESR score, were collected at one point in time. The data included demographics, medications, disease measures, and the rheumatologist's opinion of the main barriers preventing improvement to the recommended DAS28 score. RESULTS: Of the 4,037 patients with a recorded DAS28-ESR score, 304 patients (7.5%) had high disease activity (HDA) and 1,211 patients (30%) had moderate disease activity (MDA). For 584 HDA or MDA patients, the barriers to disease control (BTCs) were recorded by the rheumatologist when there was no adjustment to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. The recorded BTCs were irreversible joint damage (19.7%), patient-driven preference (14.7%), noninflammatory musculoskeletal pain (9.2%), insufficient time to assess the effect of recently initiated DMARDs (9.2%), safety concerns (7.5%), comorbidities (6.5%), resistant disease (6.3%), and other less common reasons. These patients received DMARDs (97.4%), including biologic agents (34.1%), methotrexate (74.8%), and oral corticosteroids (41.8%). CONCLUSION: This study identified clinical situations in which rheumatologists elected to continue RA patients with MDA or HDA on DMARD therapy without adjustment to achieve clinical remission or an LDA target of a DAS28-ESR score <3.2.

A multi-center, observational study shows high proportion of Australian rheumatoid arthritis patients have inadequate disease control.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the disease activity and current pharmacological interventions used to achieve remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in Australia. METHODS: Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated in participating Australian clinics were included in the study. Patient demographics, disease onset, medications and disease measures were analyzed. Data, de-identified to the patient, clinic and clinician were captured using an electronic clinical management program. The disease activity score (DAS28) was used to classify patients into the disease activity states of remission, low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA). Choice of therapy was at the discretion of the treating clinician. RESULTS: A total of 5686 patients, 72.9% female, 26.9% male, with mean age 61.1 (SD 13.6) years and mean disease duration of 11.5 (SD 10.5) years were analyzed. DAS28 ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) scores were recorded for 2973 patients, with 41.6% in remission, 18.6% LDA, 31.6% MDA and 8.2% HDA. Of those in remission, 17% received a biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD), 73% methotrexate (MTX), 19% leflunomide (LEF) and 28% prednisolone. Of the patients with MDA, 20% received a bDMARD, 76% MTX, 24% LEF and 39% prednisolone. Of the patients in HDA, 27% received a bDMARD, 78% MTX, 31% LEF and 60% with prednisolone. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional assessment of this large cohort of Australian RA patients found a large proportion remain in moderate or high disease activity; suggesting a considerable evidence-practice gap. Improvement in disease control in this group may reduce future health burdens.

The SMILE study -- safety of methotrexate in combination with leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a combination of methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) in comparison to MTX monotherapy, in clinical practice. METHODS: The Safety of Methotrexate in Combination with Leflunomide in Rheumatoid Arthritis (SMILE) study was a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional, retrospective safety study. The study was conducted by the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology-Quality Use of Medicines Initiative (OPAL QUMI). Data were deidentified for patient, clinic, and clinician prior to collection from 13 participating rheumatology practices (25 rheumatologists). Comparative analysis of safety for the different treatments, primarily with regard to neutropenia and liver abnormalities, was performed. RESULTS: In total, 2975 patients were included in the study: 74% female, 26% male, mean age 62 years (SD 13.6). Distribution of therapy: MTX monotherapy 52.2%, LEF monotherapy 7.3%, MTX plus LEF 13.9%, and neither MTX nor LEF 26.6%. Comorbid liver disease was reported in 8.1% of patients. Liver function abnormalities were reported in 12% of the MTX monotherapy group, 16% of the LEF monotherapy group, 19% of the MTX-LEF combination group, and 14% of the group not taking either drug. Neutropenia was reported in 2.3% of the MTX monotherapy group, 5.5% of the LEF monotherapy group, 3.9% of the MTX-LEF combination group, and 4.2% of the group not taking either drug. CONCLUSION: The combination of MTX and LEF was well tolerated, with adverse events comparable to those of monotherapy and the other nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment group.

Treatment for osteoporosis in Australian residential aged care facilities: consensus recommendations for fracture prevention.

Older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are at considerably higher risk of suffering fractures than older people living in the community. When admitted to RACFs, patients should be assessed for fracture risk to ensure early implementation of effective fracture prevention measures. Routine or regular determination of calcium and phosphate serum levels in institutionalised older people is not indicated. Opinion is divided about the value of routine measurements of serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, parathyroid hormone and bone turnover markers. The non-pharmacological approach to fracture prevention includes multifactorial programs of falls prevention and the use of hip protectors. Vitamin D supplementation is recommended for all patients in RACFs. Dietary calcium intake should be optimised (1200-1500 mg per day is recommended) and supplementation offered to those with inadequate intake. The decision to prescribe calcium supplements should be guided by patients' tolerance, whether or not they have a history of kidney stones, and emerging data about its cardiovascular safety. Bisphosphonates are the first-choice pharmacological agents for fracture prevention in older persons at high risk. Intravenous administration is as efficient as oral and has the significant advantage of better adherence. Use of strontium ranelate has not been tested on people in RACFs, but evidence in the "old-old" (those aged 75 years and older) suggests it could be a therapeutic option for fracture prevention in this setting. In general, teriparatide should not be considered as a first-line treatment for fracture prevention, particularly for people in RACFs.

Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. INTERPRETATION: The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.