Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Osteoporotic Fracture Risk in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Danish Cohort Study

ObjectivesClinical trials have shown a beneficial effect from biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) on hand or axial bone loss in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; however, it is unclear if this translates to a reduced fracture risk. We investigated the effect of bDMARDs on osteoporotic fracture risk compared to no biological treatment in rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsA cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 18+ from DANBIO was linked to population-based health registries in Denmark (2006-2016). Adopting a prevalent new-user design, we matched bDMARD users to bDMARD-naïve patients using time-conditional propensity scores. The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures (including hip, vertebrae, humerus, and forearm) was estimated among the matched patients by Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsOut of 24,678 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 4265 bDMARD users were matched to the same number of bDMARD-naïve patients (mean age 56.2 years, 74% female). During follow-up, 229 osteoporotic fractures occurred among bDMARD users and 205 fractures among bDMARD-naïve patients (incidence rates 12.1 and 13.0 per 1000 person-years, respectively). The use of bDMARDs was not associated with a reduced risk of osteoporotic fractures among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.20), compared with no biological treatment. The risk estimates were similar for all osteoporotic fracture sites.ConclusionWe found no independent beneficial effect from using bDMARDs on reducing the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.     

Impact of using concomitant conventional DMARDs on adherence to biologic DMARD treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: Multi-centre,population-based cohort study

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of concomitant use of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csCMARD) on adherence, switching and dose of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with bDMARDs.Patients and methodsThis was a population-based cohort study conducted in five provinces of Canada (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), and one American database (IBM® MarketScan® Databases). Adult RA patients entered the study after a 3-month initiation period of bDMARDs between 1 January 2007, and 30 March 2014. Concomitant csDMARD exposure was compared to non-csDMARD exposure on the following outcomes: discontinuation of bDMARD therapy, switching of bDMARDs, and percent change in dose of bDMARD compared to initial dose. The effect of the time-varying changes in csDMARD exposure was analyzed using marginal structural models. Dose change was analyzed using linear regression. Results from each participating site were combined using likelihood ratio meta-analysis.ResultsThe study population comprised 20,221 new users of bDMARDs: adalimumab (7609), etanercept (9809), abatacept (1024), infliximab (1779). Concomitant use of csDMARD therapy was not significantly associated with reduced discontinuation of bDMARD treatment (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% intrinsic confidence interval 0.79 to 1.02) or reduced switching of bDMARDs (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% intrinsic confidence interval 0.80 to 1.11), but was associated with a small increase in bDMARD dose compared to the mean dose over the first three months of treatment (mean percentage change in dose +0.56% mg/day, 95% intrinsic confidence interval +0.14% to +0.97%).ConclusionIn this large study of RA patients using bDMARDs in Canada and the United States, we found no clear evidence that patients who received concomitant csDMARD therapy were less likely to discontinue, switch or increase their dose of bDMARD.     

Association of four CpG-SNPs in the vascular-related genes with coronary heart disease

Vascular-related gene polymorphism can affect the susceptibility of coronary heart disease. In current study, we aimed to evaluate the contribution of four vascular-related gene CpG-SNPs to coronary heart disease (CHD). A total of 784 angiography-proven CHD patients and 746 non-CHD controls were included in the current association study. The four CpG-SNPs (including VEGFA rs1005230, ACE rs4316, CST3 rs3827143 and AGTR1 rs275653) were genotyped using the Sequenom MassARRAY platform. All genotype distribution of four SNPs met HWE. Among the four CpG-SNPs, none was found to be associated with CHD on both genotype and allele levels. Further subgroup tests by age or gender were unable to observe any significant associations of them with CHD. Our case-control study showed that none of four CpG-SNPs in the vascular-related genes was associated with the risk of CHD in Han Chinese, although we could not exclude other genetic variants of these vascular-related genes with contribution to CHD.     

What has trust got to do with it? Cardiac risk reduction and family physicians' discussions of evidence-based recommendations

The management of patients through the use of evidence-based medicine has become the 'mantra' of medicine within many Western countries. Evidence-based medicine is aimed at providing the best objective, scientific care to all patients, and reducing as far as possible patients' risks of disease and complications from disease. Based on family physicians' discussions of the use of evidence-based recommendations for two cardiac diseases, this paper explores how subjectively-based trust enters into family physicians' decision to use evidence-based medicine. In addition, we show how trust influences physicians' work of recommending evidence-based medicine to patients, and physicians' perceptions of why patients follow recommendations aimed at risk reduction. We conclude that although much of the current discussion about evidence-based medicine assumes a 'rational' model of physician behaviour based on the application of the 'best objective scientific' results, subjectively-based perceptions of trust influence physician practices, and point to the need to understand the power of relational issues in influencing physician practices even when utilizing evidence-based knowledge.     

Critical Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Anticholinergics in Overactive Bladder

Antimuscarinic agents are the primary pharmacologic treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), and objective clinical data are available in a range of formats including head-to-head studies, systematic reviews and adjusted indirect comparisons. This paper reexamines the various data available on the safety and efficacy of the antimuscarinics. Clinical studies determine whether one treatment is better than another, rather than examining which treatment is best for the individual patient. Favourable treatment outcome may not be attained because of unrealistic expectations of the patient, who may also be dissatisfied with the complications of the treatment. Comparisons between clinical studies on drug therapy for OAB may be complicated by the high placebo response rates. Variations exist in the study populations in terms of symptom severity and tolerance of adverse events, and the diverse methods of assessment employed. Apart from head-to-head studies, meta-analyses can be employed to compare different classes of drugs (lumping method) or individual drugs (splitting method) by pooling of clinical data. The adjusted indirect comparison method has been developed as a method to allow the outcome of two different trials to be compared. Overall, data from clinical trials indicate that the commonly used antimuscarinics have different tolerability and safety profiles but broadly similar efficacy profiles. Consequently, therapy should be tailored to individual patient needs rather than one drug fits all.