ObjectivesTo compare consecutive disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-treatment regimes in daily practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed on initial methotrexate, while using a multiple propensity score (PS) method to control for the spurious effects of confounding by indication.MethodsPatients with newly diagnosed RA who had failed initial treatment with methotrexate were selected from METEOR, an international, observational registry. Subsequent DMARD-treatment regimens were categorised as: (1) conventional synthetic DMARD(s) (csDMARD(s)) only (143 patients), (2) csDMARD(s)+glucocorticoid (278 patients) and (3) biological DMARD (bDMARD)±csDMARD(s) (89 patients). Multiple PS that reflect the likelihood of treatment with each treatment-regime were estimated per patient using multinomial regression. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to analyse treatment responses per category (Disease Activity Score (DAS)) after a maximum follow-up duration of 6 and 12 months, and results were presented with adjustment for the multiple PS.ResultsAfter 6 months, follow-up PS-adjusted treatment responses yielded a change in DAS per year (95% CI) of −2.00 (−2.65 to −1.36) if patients received a bDMARD; of −0.96 (−1.33 to −0.59) if patients received csDMARD(s)+glucocorticoids and of −0.73 (−1.21 to −0.25) if patients received csDMARDs only. These changes were −0.91 (−1.23 to −0.60); −0.43 (−0.62 to −0.23) and −0.39 (−0.66 to −0.13), respectively after 1 year of follow-up.ConclusionsIn this analysis of worldwide common practice data with adjustment for multiple PS, patients with RA who had failed initial treatment with methotrexate monotherapy had a better DAS-response after a subsequent switch to a bDMARD-containing treatment regimen than to a regimen with csDMARD(s) only, with or without glucocorticoids.
Background: We investigated sensitivity to change of three scoring methods of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in relation to change in disease activity in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients and Methods: Adult RA-patients with complete data in the Measurement of Efficacy of Treatment in the Era of Outcome in Rheumatology database with respect to the 20 HAQ questions and disease activity score with 28-joint count using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) for 2 visits, at least 6–12 months apart, and high disease activity (DAS28-ESR >5.1) at visit 1. Changes in HAQ scored by the (1) conventional method (HAQ-8), (2) HAQ-Tomlin method (HAQ-T), and (3) HAQ-20-item method (HAQ-20) were analyzed in relation to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA response criteria, dichotomized to good/moderate and no response. Results: In 421 patients, mean standard deviation (SD) DAS28-ESR declined significantly (6.1 [0.8]–4.8 [1.6], P < 0.0001), over a mean period (SD) of 8.7 (1.9) months. Median HAQ scores improved by all three scoring methods, HAQ-8 (1.6–1.4); HAQ-T (1.2–0.7); and HAQ-20 (1.2–0.9) with similar effect sizes of 0.97, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively. The proportion who achieved a HAQ minimally clinically important improvement (MCII) of ≥0.22 was significantly higher in 47% of patients with EULAR good/moderate score compared to the no response patients (64% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001). Good/moderate EULAR response, higher baseline DAS28, and higher baseline HAQ (7.11, 1.55, and 1.06, respectively) were independent predictors of achieving a HAQ-MCII. Conclusion: Three HAQ scoring methods performed similarly in sensitivity to change with no advantage of alternative scoring methods compared to the conventional HAQ-8 method. A good/moderate EULAR response, despite long disease duration, was associated with a significant likelihood of achieving a HAQ-MCII.
ObjectiveAge at rheumatoid arthritis (RA) onset varies by geographical latitude. We have investigated to what extent differences in patient-specific factors and country-level socioeconomic indicators explain this variability.MethodsPatients with RA from the worldwide METEOR registry were included. Bayesian multilevel structural equation models were used to study the relationship between the absolute value of (hospital) geographical latitude and age at diagnosis (as a proxy for age at RA onset). We examined to what extent this effect is mediated by individual patient characteristics and by country-specific socioeconomic indicators and disentangled whether the observed effects occurred at the patient, hospital, or country levels.ResultsWe included 37 981 patients from 93 hospitals in 17 geographically widespread countries. Mean age at diagnosis per country ranged from 39 (Iran) to 55 (Netherlands) years. Per degree increase in country latitude (between 9.9° and 55.8°), mean age at diagnosis increased by 0.23 years (95% credibility interval: 0.095 to 0.38) (reflecting >10 years difference in age at RA onset). For hospitals within a country, this latitude effect was negligible. Inclusion of patient-specific factors (eg, gender, anticitrullinated protein antibodies status) in the model augmented the main effect from 0.23 to 0.36 years. Inclusion of country-level socioeconomic indicators (eg, gross domestic product per capita) in the model almost effaced the main effect (from 0.23 to 0.051 (−0.37 to 0.38)).ConclusionsPatients living closer to the equator get RA at a younger age. This latitude gradient was not explained by individual patient characteristics, but rather by countries’ socioeconomic status, providing a direct link between countries’ level of welfare and the clinical onset of RA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.