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:For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1-3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000-2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.