Dataset Information

A Bridge Too Far? Real-World Practice Patterns of Early Glucocorticoid Use in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe patterns of glucocorticoid use in a large real-world cohort with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assess the impact on disease activity and treatment.

Methods

Data are from adults with new RA (≤1 year) recruited to the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) and are stratified on the basis of whether a person was prescribed oral glucocorticoids within 3 months of study entry. Disease activity was compared over 24 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used for adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of escalation to biologics separately for 12 and 24 months, with random effects terms to account for prescribing patterns clustering by study site.

Results

Among 1891 persons, 30% received oral steroids. Users were older, were less often employed, and had shorter disease duration and higher disease activity. Disease activity improved over time, with early glucocorticoid users starting at higher levels of disease activity. Participants with early oral glucocorticoids were more likely to be on a biologic at 12 months (aOR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.7) and 24 months (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0). Despite Canadian clinical practice guidelines to limit corticosteroid use to short-term or 'bridge' therapy, 30% of patients who used oral glucocorticoids still used them 2 years later.

Conclusion

Early steroids were prescribed sparingly in CATCH and were often indicative of more active baseline disease as well as the need for progression to biologics.

SUBMITTER: Andersen KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8754017 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is based on the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Tocilizumab can be used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis. Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous forms of the drug are available, but the SC form is more widely used.ObjectiveTo understand the real-world dose modification patterns of SC tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.MethodsData were obtained from the Truven (now IBM) MarketScan and Optum Clinformatics databases. Patients were included if they had ≥1 pharmacy claims for SC tocilizumab and met other inclusion criteria. The mean, standard deviation, and median values were reported for the continuous variables, and frequency was reported for the categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to analyze the time to first dose modification. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify predictors of the likelihood of dose modification.ResultsThe study included 1266 patients in the Truven database and 512 patients in the Optum database who had commercial or Medicare Advantage or supplemental insurance. Of the patients who started treatment with biweekly SC tocilizumab (48% each in the Truven and Optum databases), 37% in Truven and 40% in Optum had dose escalation to a weekly dose. Of those who started weekly SC tocilizumab (43% in the Truven and 49% in the Optum databases), 3% (Truven) and 4% (Optum) had dose reduction. The remaining patients started alternative SC tocilizumab doses. Overall, 60% and 68% of patients in the Truven and Optum cohorts, respectively, initiated or escalated to the higher weekly dose of tocilizumab; the mean time to dose escalation was 126 days and 112 days, respectively. In the Truven cohort, corticosteroid use, age, and anemia were the main predictors for dose escalation. In the Optum cohort, female patients had increased odds of dose escalation compared with male patients.ConclusionThe dosing trends observed in this study show that physicians have taken advantage of the option to increase SC tocilizumab dosing, but only a few providers chose to reduce the dose. This trend in dose modification may increase the costs related to SC tocilizumab therapy.

Project description:This study describes how health care providers approach canagliflozin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the real world.An Internet-based questionnaire was completed by 101 endocrinologists, 101 primary care physicians, and 100 nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PAs). Health care providers were required to have experience prescribing or managing patients using canagliflozin to be included in the study. Health care providers compared canagliflozin with other T2DM medication classes on clinical characteristics, costs, and patient satisfaction. Confidence in canagliflozin was also measured. Health care providers reported their canagliflozin prescribing experience and good candidate characteristics for treatment. Finally, providers reported on patient outcomes among those receiving canagliflozin. All variables were compared across provider type.Health care providers reported higher favorability for canagliflozin for blood pressure and body weight compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and higher favorability for effect on blood pressure, body weight, treatment satisfaction, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) compared with sulfonylureas (SUs), with differences observed for effect on blood pressure. Health care providers reported being very/extremely confident (55%-74%) with canagliflozin as a second-to fourth-line treatment. The top 3 characteristics reported by the providers, in terms of describing a good candidate for canagliflozin, include those concerned about their weight, insurance coverage/affordability, and avoiding injectable treatments. Finally, providers reported often/always observing patients' lowering or controlling HbA1c (82%-88%) and improvement in overall quality of life (QoL; 50%-53%) with canagliflozin treatment. No differences were observed across provider type for confidence, good candidate characteristics, or patient outcomes.Health care providers reported favorable experiences with canagliflozin and witnessed improvements in patients' clinical outcomes and QoL.

Project description:IntroductionJuvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a chronic rheumatic disease, whose multifaceted care path can lead to significant expenditure for the healthcare system. We aim to assess the real-world healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated cost for children with JIA in a single center in Canada.MethodsA single-center consecutive cohort of newly diagnosed patients with JIA attending the pediatric rheumatology clinic from 2011 to 2019 was identified using an administrative data algorithm and electronic medical charts. HCRU was estimated from six administrative health databases that included hospital admissions, emergency, outpatient care, practitioners' visits, medication, and laboratory and imaging tests. Costs were assigned using appropriate sources. We reported the yearly overall and JIA-associated HCRU and costs 5 years prior to and 6 years after the first visit to the pediatric rheumatologist. The Zhao and Tian estimator was used to calculate cumulative mean costs over a 6-year timeframe. Results were stratified by disease subtype.ResultsA total of 389 patients were identified. The yearly total overall mean costs per patient ranged between $804 and $4460 during the 5 years prior to the first visit to the pediatric rheumatologist and $8529 and $10,651 for the 6 years after. Medication cost, driven by use of biologic therapies, and outpatient visits were the greatest contributor to the total cost. The overall cumulative mean cost for 6 years of care was $48,649 per patient, while the JIA-associated cumulative mean cost was $26,820 per patient. During the first year of rheumatology care, systemic onset JIA had the highest cumulative mean overall cost, while oligoarticular JIA had the lowest cumulative mean cost.ConclusionThe care pathway for children with JIA can be expensive, and complex-and varies by JIA subtype. Although the yearly total mean cost per patient was constant, the distribution of costs changes over time with the introduction of biologic therapies later in the care pathway. This study provides a better understanding of the JIA costs profile and can help inform future economic studies.

Project description:Real-world and long-term data on biologic treatment changes - including switching, discontinuation, dose escalation, and interval change (both increasing and decreasing) - are required to understand treatment patterns for psoriasis (PsO) in Canada. The study objectives were to evaluate the time to first biologic treatment change and to document these changes in Canadian patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque PsO. Charts from 13 Canadian sites were queried retrospectively (2005-2019); a period covering all biologic classes commonly used for PsO in Canada. Included were patients diagnosed with, and currently using biologics for, moderate-to-severe chronic plaque PsO. Time to first treatment change, nature of treatment change, number of lines of treatment, proportion of patients on each drug, and drug survival were collected. Based on 1149 medical charts, adalimumab had the longest time to first treatment change (49.3 months; 95% confidence interval, 37.4-67.4). Approximately half of the patients had a treatment change, and nearly 75% of these changes were either an interval change or a biologic switch. Lack of efficacy was the most prevalent primary reason for biologic switch (67.3%), whereas 6.7% of patients switched due to adverse events. Drug survival for etanercept and infliximab was approximately twice as long for patients who had dose optimization (i.e., dose escalation or interval change) than patients without dose optimization. The survival curve of adalimumab was similar to the one of ustekinumab after 48 months of treatment, showing approximately 60% of patients remaining on treatment after 132 months, with or without dose optimization. Assessing treatment patterns of all commonly used biologics for moderate-to-severe chronic plaque PsO in Canada between 2005 and 2019 showed that approximately half of the patients required a treatment change (mainly interval change or biologic switch) while the other half remained on treatment.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe treatment patterns and persistence of tofacitinib, interleukin 17 inhibitors (IL-17Ai) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsData from adult patients with PsA and who had received at least one prescription of tofacitinib, IL-17Ai or TNFi between May 2019 and September 2021 were sourced from the Australian OPAL dataset. Persistence, analysed via Kaplan-Meier methods, and propensity score matching between tofacitinib and bDMARD (IL-17Ai and TNFi) groups were conducted.ResultsOf 16,692 patients with PsA, 1486 (n = 406 tofacitinib, n = 416 IL-17Ai and n = 664 TNFi) were included. More females were in the tofacitinib group (75.4%) than in the IL-17Ai (61.1%) and TNFi (64.8%) groups. Overall, 19.2% of tofacitinib patients were first line, compared with 41.8% of IL-17Ai and 62.8% of TNFi patients. In the overall population, the median persistence was 16.5 months (95% CI 13.8 to 19.5 months), 17.7 months (95% CI 15.8 to 19.6 months) and 17.2 months (95% CI 14.9 to 20.5 months) in the tofacitinib, IL-17Ai and TNFi groups, respectively. Persistence was similar in the tofacitinib/IL-17Ai matched population; however, in the tofacitinib/TNFi matched population, persistence was longer in the tofacitinib group (18.7 months, 95% CI 15.6 to 21.4 months) compared with the TNFi group (12.2 months, 95% CI 19.9 to 14.9 months).ConclusionsIn this Australian real-world dataset, tofacitinib was more frequently used in later lines and among a slightly higher proportion of female patients than IL-17Ai or TNFi. Overall, treatment persistence was similar for tofacitinib, IL-17Ai and TNFi, but tofacitinib exhibited longer persistence than TNFi in a matched population. Key Points • This is the first, large real-world study from Australia investigating the demographics, treatment patterns and comparative treatment persistence of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with tofacitinib and biologic disease-modifying drugs (bDMARDs). • The study suggests that tofacitinib is an effective intervention in PsA with at least comparable persistence to bDMARDs: tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and interleukin-17 A inhibitors (IL-17Ai).

Project description:IntroductionThe objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting.MethodsThis observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib.ResultsA total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively.ConclusionThis study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization.