Dataset Information

Changes in the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis over two decades.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess whether modern management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has reduced the prescription of oral corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and to evaluate use of pharmacological prophylaxis strategies.

Methods

Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we explored long-term (≥3/12 months; ≥6/12 in sub-analyses) disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), corticosteroid and NSAID prescribing (annually, in the year post-diagnosis and across the patient's life-course to 15 years post-diagnosis), annual proportion with co-prescribing for prophylaxis of associated bone (corticosteroids, women only) and gastrointestinal (NSAIDs) comorbidity.

Results

Reported incidence of RA was 5.98 (±0.37) per 10 000 person-years and prevalence was 0.91% (±0.014) in 2017. In 71 411 RA patients, long-term DMARD prescribing initially rose post-diagnosis from 41.6% in 1998-67.9% in 2009. Corticosteroid prescribing changed little, overall (22.2% in 1998, 19.1% in 2016; incident risk ratio (IRR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.03) and across the life-course from the first to fifteenth year (22.2% to 16.9%). NSAID prescribing declined from 57.7% in 1998, and significantly so from 2008, to 27.1% in 2016 (IRR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44-0.56). This continued across the life-course (41.2% to 28.4%). Bone prophylaxis increased to 68.1% in 2008 before declining to 56.4% in 2017; gastrointestinal prophylaxis increased from 11.5% in 1998-62.6% in 2017. Sub-analyses showed consistent patterns.

Conclusion

Despite modern treatment strategies, corticosteroid prescribing in RA patients remains substantial and persists beyond 6 months once initiated. Rheumatologists need to determine causes and develop strategies to reduce corticosteroid use to minimise adverse event occurrence.

SUBMITTER: Crossfield SSR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8409998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether government efforts in reducing inequalities in health in European countries have actually made a difference to mortality inequalities by socioeconomic group.DesignRegister based study.Data sourceMortality data by level of education and occupational class in the period 1990-2010, usually collected in a census linked longitudinal study design. We compared changes in mortality between the lowest and highest socioeconomic groups, and calculated their effect on absolute and relative inequalities in mortality (measured as rate differences and rate ratios, respectively).SettingAll European countries for which data on socioeconomic inequalities in mortality were available for the approximate period between years 1990 and 2010. These included Finland, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, England and Wales (data applied to both together), France, Switzerland, Spain (Barcelona), Italy (Turin), Slovenia, and Lithuania.ResultsSubstantial mortality declines occurred in lower socioeconomic groups in most European countries covered by this study. Relative inequalities in mortality widened almost universally, because percentage declines were usually smaller in lower socioeconomic groups. However, as absolute declines were often smaller in higher socioeconomic groups, absolute inequalities narrowed by up to 35%, particularly among men. Narrowing was partly driven by ischaemic heart disease, smoking related causes, and causes amenable to medical intervention. Progress in reducing absolute inequalities was greatest in Spain (Barcelona), Scotland, England and Wales, and Italy (Turin), and absent in Finland and Norway. More detailed studies preferably using individual level data are necessary to identify the causes of these variations.ConclusionsOver the past two decades, trends in inequalities in mortality have been more favourable in most European countries than is commonly assumed. Absolute inequalities have decreased in several countries, probably more as a side effect of population wide behavioural changes and improvements in prevention and treatment, than as an effect of policies explicitly aimed at reducing health inequalities.

Project description:ObjectiveCandidate gene association studies and genome-wide association studies (GWAs) have identified a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) loci affecting susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, for the same locus, some studies have yielded inconsistent results. To assess all the available evidence for association, we performed a meta-analysis on previously published case-control studies investigating the association between SNPs and RA.MethodsTwo hundred and sixteen studies, involving 125 SNPs, were reviewed. For each SNP, three genetic models were considered: the allele, dominant and recessive effects models. For each model, the effect summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs were calculated. Cochran's Q-statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. If the heterogeneity was high, a random effects model was used for meta-analysis, otherwise a fixed effects model was used.ResultsThe meta-analysis results showed that: (1) 30, 28 and 26 SNPs were significantly associated with RA (P<0.01) for the allele, dominant, and recessive models, respectively. (2) rs2476601 (PTPN22) showed the strongest association for all the three models: OR = 1.605, 95% CI: 1.540-1.672, P<1.00E-15 for the T-allele; OR = 1.638, 95% CI: 1.565-1.714, P<1.00E-15 for the T/T+T/C genotype and OR = 2.544, 95% CI: 2.173-2.978, P<1.00E-15 for the T/T genotype. (3) Only 23 (18.4%), 13 (10.4%) and 15 (12.0%) SNPs had high heterogeneity (P<0.01) for the three models, respectively. (4) For some of the SNPs, there was no publication bias according to Funnel plots and Egger's regression tests (P<0.01). For the other SNPs, the associations were tested in only a few studies, and may have been subject to publication bias. More studies on these loci are required.ConclusionOur meta-analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of the RA association studies from the past two decades. The detailed meta-analysis results are available at: http://210.46.85.180/DRAP/index.php/Metaanalysis/index.

Project description:IntroductionThe disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis has improved during the past decade. The availability of new drugs and also a better assessment of the disease have been proposed to be responsible for this improvement. In the present work we estimate the effect of these factors on disease activity and function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis at the beginning of the new century.MethodsThe Estudio de la Morbilidad y Expresión Clínica de la Artritis Reumatoide (EMECAR) cohort was assembled in 2000 from the random sampling of rheumatoid arthritis patients registered in 34 centers. The cohort was composed of 789 patients who underwent a baseline assessment plus four annual follow-up visits in which functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire score), the disease activity score obtained from 28-joint count with three parameters (DAS28-3) and radiological progression (Larsen score) were recorded. The effect of the calendar year on the DAS28-3, the Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and the Larsen score was obtained from adjusted models in which all treatments were included as dummy variables.ResultsThe effect of time as the beta coefficient (95% confidence interval) for 2004, taking 2000 as a reference year, was -0.43 (-0.58 to -0.28) for the DAS28-3, 0.15 (0.07 to 0.22) for the Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and 4.4 (2.68 to 6.12) for the Larsen score. Treatment with new therapies, either leflunomide or TNF antagonists, increased in frequency from 1.1% (n = 8) in 2000 to 30.9% (n = 144) in 2004. Treatment with TNF antagonists (-0.28 (-0.5 to -0.05)) and with gold salts (-0.21 (-0.38 to -0.04)) was independently associated with a decrease in the DAS28-3 over time, whereas cyclosporin A treatment (0.45 (0.13 to 0.76)) was associated with an increase in disease activity.ConclusionsThe mean disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis has improved from 2000 to 2004. An explanation is the introduction of new therapies, but not solely. Other factors related to the calendar year, plausibly a better management of available drugs, show a greater effect on improvement than the drugs used.