Aktuelle saker
Jeg vil se flere saker
14. mars 2024
Revmatologen nr.1 2024
23. februar 2024
Med sans for sjeldne sykdommer
9. februar 2024
Metodeboken: Eksempler på ultralydveiledede injeksjoner (video)
6. februar 2024
NRF medlemsmiddag under EULAR 2024
6. februar 2024
CHANGE Study 2024
23. januar 2024
Ultralydkurs for spesialister 15.-17.april 2024
5. januar 2024
EULAR 2024
16. oktober 2023
Fra Dagens Medisin - Podcast om Revmatologi
Finn informasjon om
Kommende kurs og møter
Forskningsmidler/stipend
Norske kvalitetsregistre
Regelverk, koding, prioritering
Nasjonale kompetansetjenester
Nyttige lenker
Finn informasjon om
Kommende kurs og møter
Forskningsmidler/stipend
Norske kvalitetsregistre
Regelverk, koding, prioritering
Nasjonale kompetansetjenester
Nyttige lenker
Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology Aims & Scope
12. desember 2023
Volume 53, Issue 2, March 2024, Page 123-129.
14. desember 2023
Volume 53, Issue 2, March 2024, Page 130-139.
8. januar 2024
Volume 53, Issue 2, March 2024, Page 140-145.
Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
12. mars 2024
The Advances in Targeted Therapies meets annually, convening experts in the field of rheumatology to both provide scientific updates and identify existing scientific gaps within the field. To review the major unmet scientific needs in rheumatology. The 23rd annual Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting convened with more than 100 international basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties relating to all aspects of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We held breakout sessions in five rheumatological disease-specific groups including: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpa), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and vasculitis, and osteoarthritis (OA). In each group, experts were asked to identify and prioritise current unmet needs in clinical and translational research. An overarching theme across all disease states is the continued need for clinical trial design innovation with regard to therapeutics, endpoint and disease endotypes. Within RA, unmet needs comprise molecular classification of disease pathogenesis and activity, pre-/early RA strategies, more refined pain profiling and innovative trials designs to deliver on precision medicine. Continued scientific questions within PsA include evaluating the genetic, immunophenotypic, clinical signatures that predict development of PsA in patients with psoriasis, and the evaluation of combination therapies for difficult-to-treat disease. For axSpA, there continues to be the need to understand the role of interleukin-23 (IL-23) in pathogenesis and the genetic relationship of the IL-23-receptor polymorphism with other related systemic inflammatory diseases (eg, inflammatory bowel disease). A major unmet need in the OA field remains the need to develop the ability to reliably phenotype and stratify patients for inclusion in clinical trials. SLE experts identified a number of unmet needs within clinical trial design including the need for allowing endpoints that reflect pharmacodynamic/functional outcomes (eg, inhibition of type I interferon pathway activation; changes in urine biomarkers). Lastly, within SSc and vasculitis, there is a lack of biomarkers that predict response or disease progression, and that allow patients to be stratified for therapies. There remains a strong need to innovate clinical trial design, to identify systemic and tissue-level biomarkers that predict progression or response to therapy, endotype disease, and to continue developing therapies and therapeutic strategies for those with treatment-refractory disease. This document, based on expert consensus, should provide a roadmap for prioritising scientific endeavour in the field of rheumatology.
12. mars 2024
We, rheumatologists, practise in an era when the study of rheumatic diseases and the care of affected patients are rooted in rigorous scientific investigation. This was not the case before the mid-20th century, when Dr Morris Ziff and a few other Pillars of Rheumatology pioneered the application of rigorous basic and clinical science to a nascent field, in which affected people were often regarded as hopeless and incurable. It is important to recall that rheumatology is a very young discipline. Before 1937, there were only six major US centres of rheumatology, and their focus was mainly on disease description. Other than aspirin and gold salts, few specific therapies existed, and most patients were left to journey through the painful natural history of their disease without effective treatment. Three major advances transformed the field: the discovery of rheumatoid factor (RF) by Erik Waaler in 1940 (rediscovered by Harry Rose in...
12. mars 2024
Background
In a clinical trial setting, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib demonstrated higher adverse events rates compared with those taking the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab or etanercept.
Objective
Compare treatment discontinuations for adverse events (AEs) among second-line therapies in an international real-world RA population.
Methods
Patients initiating JAKi, TNFi or a biological with another mode of action (OMA) from 17 registers participating in the ‘JAK-pot’ collaboration were included. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs. We used unadjusted and adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models to compare treatment discontinuations for AEs among treatment groups by class, but also evaluating separately the specific type of JAKi.
Results
Of the 46 913 treatment courses included, 12 523 were JAKi (43% baricitinib, 40% tofacitinib, 15% upadacitinib, 2% filgotinib), 23 391 TNFi and 10 999 OMA. The adjusted cause-specific hazard rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs was similar for TNFi versus JAKi (1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10) and higher for OMA versus JAKi (1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23), lower with TNFi compared with tofacitinib (0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), but higher for TNFi versus baricitinib (1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30) and lower for TNFi versus JAKi in patients 65 or older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor (0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97).
Conclusion
While JAKi overall were not associated with more treatment discontinuations for AEs, subgroup analyses suggest varying patterns with specific JAKi, such as tofacitinib, compared with TNFi. However, these observations should be interpreted cautiously, given the observational study design.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Hva synes du om denne siden?
Gi oss tilbakemelding