Onset of androgen deprivation therapy leads to rapid deterioration of body composition, physical performance, cardiometabolic health and quality-of-life in prostate cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse impact of the first 5 months of androgen deprivation therapy on body composition, physical performance, cardiometabolic health and health-related quality-of-life in prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four prostate cancer patients (70 ± 7 years) were assessed shortly after initiation of androgen deprivation therapy and again 5 months thereafter. Measurements consisted of whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (body composition), computed tomography scanning of the upper leg (muscle mass), one-repetition maximum leg press (muscle strength), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (aerobic capacity), blood draws (metabolic parameters), accelerometry (habitual physical activity) and questionnaires (health-related quality-of-life). Data were analyzed with Student's paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Over time, whole-body fat mass (from 26.2 ± 7.7 to 28.4 ± 8.3 kg, p < 0.001) and fasting insulin (from 9.5 ± 5.8 to 11.3 ± 6.9 mU/L, p < 0.001) increased. Declines were observed for quadriceps cross-sectional area (from 66.3 ± 9.1 to 65.0 ± 8.5 cm², p < 0.01), one-repetition maximum leg press (from 107 ± 27 to 100 ± 27 kg, p < 0.01), peak oxygen uptake (from 23.2 ± 3.7 to 20.3 ± 3.4 mL/min/kg body weight, p < 0.001), step count (from 7,048 ± 2,277 to 5,842 ± 1,749 steps/day, p < 0.01) and health-related quality-of-life (from 84.6 ± 13.5 to 77.0 ± 14.6, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Androgen deprivation therapy induces adverse changes in body composition, muscle strength, cardiometabolic health and health-related quality-of-life already within 5 months after the start of treatment, possibly largely contributed by diminished habitual physical activity. Prostate cancer patients should, therefore, be stimulated to increase their habitual physical activity immediately after initiation of androgen deprivation therapy, to limit adverse side-effects and to improve health-related quality-of-life.

POS1012 PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRESSION FROM NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TO ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS

Background

Part of the patients with non-radiographic spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) will progress to ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Varying factors are reported to be predictive of this progression of which the presence of elevated CRP and active sacroliitis on MRI are most often found1.

Objectives

To explore patient characteristics and clinical assessments associated with progression from nr-axSpA to AS up to 6 years follow-up in daily clinical practice.

Methods

Patients from the ongoing Groningen Leeuwarden axial SpA (GLAS) cohort classified as nr-axSpA enrolled into the cohort (baseline) between 2009 and 2018 were included in the analyses. Nr-axSpA was defined as sacroiliitis of ≥ 2 grade bilaterally or ≥ 3 unilaterally on the AP view of pelvic radiographs, according to the modified New-York (mNY) criteria. Baseline and available radiographs at 2 (n=85), 4 (n=53) and 6 years (n=30) of follow-up were randomized with radiographs of patients with AS and scored with known time sequence according to the mNY criteria by 2 trained readers (SK and RW). In case of disagreement in classification, the score of a third independent reader (AS) was used. Progression to AS was defined as progression in mNY sacroiliitis score to a score of ≥2 bilaterally or ≥3 unilaterally at any time during the 6-year follow-up period. Patient characteristics and clinical assessments at baseline were compared between patients who did and did not progress from nr-axSpA to AS, using chi-squared tests, Mann-whitney U tests or independent t-tests when appropriate.

Results

85 patients were classified as nr-axSpA at baseline. Mean age was 39±11 years, 52% was male, median symptom duration was 6 (IQR 3-17) years, 75% was HLA-B27+, and mean ASDAS was 2.7±1.1.

After 2, 4 and 6 years, 9/85 (10.6%), 4/47 (8.5%) and 2/24 (8.3%) of nr-axSpA patients progressed to AS. In total, 15 patients progressed to AS and 31 and 19 patients did not yet reach follow-up at 4 and 6 years, respectively.

Patients with nr-axSpA progressing to AS were significantly more often current smokers (62% vs. 21%, p=0.003) and had more often a history of uveitis (47 vs. 11%, p=0.001). Furthermore, patients with nr-axSpA progressing to AS tended to have higher CRP (and therefore ASDAS), more entheseal involvement, and worse lumbar spinal mobility then non-progressors; however, due to the relatively low number of progressors during the analyzed follow-up period, significance could not be reached (Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics between patients with nr-axSpA who did and did not progress to AS. Values presented as mean ± SD, median (IQR) and n (%) for normally distributed, non-normally distributed and categorical variables, respectively. *p<0.05.

Baseline characteristicsAll patients (n=85)No progression (n=70)Progression (n=15)pMale sex44 (52%)39 (56%)5 (33%)0.115Age38.6 ± 10.838.4 ± 10.239.5 ± 13.80.774Symptom duration6 (3 – 17)7 (3 – 16)4 (2 – 20)0.663HLA-B27+62 (75%)52 (74%)10 (67%)0.758Currently smoking22 (28%)14 (21%)8 (53%)0.003*BMI26.1 ± 4.426.2 ± 4.525.8 ± 4.20.750History of uveitis15 (18%)8 (11%)7 (47%)0.001*History of IBD7 (8%)6 (9%)1 (8%)0.808History of psoriasis12 (14%)10 (15%)2 (13%)0.923ASDAS2.7 ± 1.12.6 ± 1.13.2 ± 1.00.107- ASDAS >2.151 (72%)41 (68%)10 (91%)0.126BASDAI5.3 (3.4 – 6.7)5.4 (3.2 – 6.8)4.7 (3.6 – 6.7)0.538CRP ≥5.021 (27%)16 (25%)5 (39%)0.320Start TNFi (during first 2 years of follow-up)27 (32%)23 (33%)4 (27%)0.640Chest expansion (cm)5.2 ± 2.15.3 ± 2.14.7 ± 2.10.367Lateral spinal flexion (cm)14.4 (10.5 – 17.5)14.5 (10.7 – 17.7)11.3 (9.0 – 17.5)0.163mSchober (cm)14.1 ± 1.314.1 ± 1.313.7 ± 1.30.308

Conclusion

In our cohort, active smoking and a history of uveitis were independently associated with the progression of nr-axSpA to AS. Combining data of different cohorts will help to assess a more robust picture of axSpA features and patient characteristics associated with progression to AS.

References

[1]Protopopov M, Poddubnyy D. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2018;14(6):525-533

Acknowledgements

The GLAS cohort has received unrestricted grants from Novartis.

Disclosure of Interests

Stan Kieskamp: None declared, Rick Wilbrink: None declared, Mark Siderius: None declared, Freke Wink: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Hendrika Bootsma Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Medimmune, Union Chimique Belge, Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche, Suzanne Arends: None declared, Anneke Spoorenberg Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Novartis Pharma, Pfizer

POS1438 FRYQ QUESTIONNAIRE DISTINGUISHES INFLAMMATORY FROM NON-INFLAMMATORY DISEASE IN NEWLY REFERRED PATIENTS

Background

Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases (IRDs) affect 5% of the general population, while 35% of the population experiences Musculoskeletal Complaints (MSCs) [1]. IRDs cause early disability, reduced life-expectancy and considerable health care costs. Early diagnosis is essential to prevent long-term damage, similarly important is the early identification of patients with MSCs without IRDs to prevent unnecessary health care expenses. Of the population referred to the rheumatologist, 60% have non-inflammatory MSCs while only 20% of patients with an IRD see a rheumatologist within three months of symptom onset [2]. The need for digital predictive (triage) tools for Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases led to the development of the Frysian Questionnaire for differentiation of MSK complaints (FRYQ).

Objectives

To assess if FRYQ questionnaire can distinguish inflammatory rheumatic disease from non-inflammatory MSCs in newly referred patients.

Methods

The Frysian Questionnaire for differentiation of MSK complaints (FRYQ) is an 87 item questionnaire (consisting of 20 open questions and 67 closed questions), which is used in regular care in the rheumatology outpatient clinic of the Medical Center Leeuwarden to triage newly referred patients. Results of FRYQ, referral work diagnosis, resulting diagnoses and demographic data of 854 patients were collected. Elastic Net regularization was used to extract the most informative questions. The data was split: 75% to construct the elastic net and 25% to perform an independent validation. The classification performance was evaluated according to the area under the ROC-curve.

Results

The group consisted of 287 males (33%) and 570 (66%) females. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 854 studied referrals.

Table 1.Table 1Referral orwork diagnosisNumber (%)Diagnosis by rheumatologist Number (%)Correct work diagnosis GPNumber (%)Rheumatoid arthritis146 (16.9)87 (10.1)53 (36.3)Psoriatic arthritis41 (4.8)29 (3.4)17 (41.5)Spondylarthropathy64 (7.4)52 (6.0)30 (46.9)Undifferentiated oligoarthritis97 (11.2)10 (1.2)5 (5.2)Polymyalgia rheumatica55 (6.4)27 (3.1)22 (40.0)Gout55 (6.4)49 (5.7)40 (72.7)Calcium pyrophosphate deposition4 (0.5)13 (1.5)2 (50.0)Sarcoidosis10 (1.2)10 (1.2)5 (50.0)Arthralgia124 (14.4)0 (0) Varied: mostly non inflammatoryNAClinically suspect arthralgia018 (2.1)NAReactive arthritis2 (0.2)12 (1.4)1 (50.0)Sjögrens’ syndrome14 (1.6)6 (0.7)2 (14.3)Systemic sclerosis3 (0.3)5 (0.6)2 (66.7)Systemic lupus erythematosus8 (0.9)5 (0.6)3 (37.5)GPA vasculitis01 (0.1)0 (0)Suspicion systemic auto immune disease57 (6.6)0 (varied: mostly non inflammatory)0 (0)Tendomyalgia27 (3.1)117 (13.6)10 (37.0)Fibromyalgia79 (9.2)110 (12.7%)57 (72.2)Osteoarthritis29 (3.4)153 (17.7%)22 (75.9)Hypermobility syndrome023 (2.7)0 (0)Unknown60NAOther33 (3.9)127* (14.8)NAtotal854 (100)854 (100)NAInflammatory293 (34.3 %)*Non-inflammatory560 (65.7 %)*

*including missing data

After elastic net regularization the 87 items could be reduced to 33 items that were able to differentiate inflammatory disease from non-inflammatory disease with an AUC of 0.70 in the ROC curve below (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

ROC-curve highlighting performance of FRYQ after regularization in the validation set

Conclusion

FRYQ questionnaire can differentiate inflammatory rheumatic disease from non-inflammatory musculoskeletal complaints. To officially validate FRYQ a prospective cohort study is needed.

References

[1]van der Linden, M.W, Westert G.P, de Bakker, D.H et al. Tweede Nationale Studie naar ziekten en verrichtingen in de huisartspraktijk. https://www.nivel.nl/sites/default/files/bestanden/ns2_rapport1.pdf. Utrecht/Bilthoven: NIVEL/RIVM, 2004.

[2]Stack RJ, Nightingale P, Jinks C, et al. Delays between the onset of symptoms and first rheumatology consultation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK: an observational study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024361,2018-024361.

Acknowledgements

We thank our data managers and outpatient clinic secretariat.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0263 FAVORABLE BALANCE OF BENEFIT AND HARM OF LONG-TERM, LOW-DOSE PREDNISOLONE ADDED TO STANDARD TREATMENT IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS AGED 65+: THE PRAGMATIC, MULTICENTER, PLACEBO- CONTROLLED GLORIA TRIAL

Background

Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in RA but the true balance of benefit and harm is still unknown.

Objectives

We studied the effects of prednisolone (5 mg/day, 2 years) in RA patients aged 65+, requiring adjustment of antirheumatic therapy (DAS28≥2.60).

Methods

Pragmatic double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial; all co-treatments and changes therein were allowed during the trial except long-term open label GC; Ca/D supplementation was advised in all patients. Minimal exclusion criteria were tailored to seniors.

Harm outcome: the number of patients with ≥1 serious adverse event (SAE), or ≥1 ‘other adverse event of special interest’ (other AESI). Other AESI comprised any AE (except worsening of RA) causing study discontinuation, and GC-specific events (Table 1).

Table 1.

Adverse events of special interest (AESI).*

prednisolone (n=224)placebo (n=225)Events by protocol-defined categorySAEother AESISAEother AESI Infection261241691  Urinary tract449429  Pneumonia217213  Other20581049 Cardiovascular8260 Symptomatic fracture21146 New onset  Hypertension1407  Diabetes mellitus0201  Cataract0726  Glaucoma0103 Other†43433526Total8019463140

*AESI: Comprises serious adverse events (SAE) and other AESI, defined by protocol.

†‘Other’ other AESI: non-serious AE outside of the above predefined categories, but associated with premature discontinuation.

Benefit outcomes: improvement in disease activity (DAS28) and joint damage progression (Sharp/van der Heijde).

Longitudinal mixed models analyzed the data. Given prior knowledge we report one-sided 95% confidence limit (95%CL) and statistical tests, performed only for the main outcomes.

Results

We randomized 451 RA patients in 7 EU countries, 449 received the intervention; of these 63% prednisolone vs 61% placebo patients completed 2 years of follow up. Discontinuations were similar in both groups: for AE (14%) and active disease (4%); the remainder mostly for ‘trial fatigue’ and covid-related access issues (20%). Mean time on study drug was 19 (SD 8) months.

70% of patients were female, mean age was 72 (max 88) years, RA duration 11 years; 67% were RF+, 56% ACPA+, 96% had joint damage on radiographs: mean score 20, median 8. Mean DAS28 was 4.5. Most patients (79%) were on current DMARD treatment, including 14% on biologics; 47% had previously used GC, 14% changed DMARD therapy at baseline. Patients had mean 2.1 active comorbidities, and used median 7 drugs.

Benefit: Disease activity rapidly declined to stabilize after 1 year (Figure 1), and was lower on prednisolone (adjusted mean difference in DAS28 over 2 years: 0.37, 95%CL 0.23, p<0.0001). The contrast in early (3-month) response was larger in 331 patients adherent to protocol on stable treatment: mean difference in DAS28 0.62 (95%CL 0.44), more responders on prednisolone (Figure 1). Significant time-treatment interaction in secondary analyses suggested a decrease in contrast after the first year, most likely caused by significantly more changes in DMARD treatment on placebo. Joint damage progression over 2 years was significantly lower on prednisolone: mean 0.6 (SD 1.9) v 1.8 (6.4) score points on placebo, difference 1.2 (95%CL 0.2, p=0.02).

Harm: 60% prednisolone vs 49% placebo patients experienced the harm outcome: adjusted RR 1.24, 95%CL 1.04, p=0.02; number needed to harm 9.5 (Table 1). During the study 1 vs 2 patients died, and 3 vs 0 died within 5 months of discontinuation. Per 100 patient-years, AE totaled 278 in prednisolone vs 206 in placebo patients, and the difference was most marked for infections (Table 1); these were mostly mild or moderately severe. Other GC-specific AESI were rare without relevant differences.

Conclusion

Add-on low dose prednisolone has beneficial long-term effects on disease activity and damage progression in senior RA patients on standard treatment. The tradeoff is a 24% increase in patients with mostly mild to moderate AE, suggesting a favorable balance of benefit and harm.

Acknowledgements

Trial registration: NCT02585258 (clinicaltrials.gov).

The trial is part of a larger project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 634886.

Apart from the listed authors and centers, the GLORIA Trial Consortium comprises:

L.M. Middelink, Middelinc BV The Netherlands, Operational Lead;

V. Dekker, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Financial Lead;

Partners:

Trial operations: N. van den Bulk, CR2O BV, The Netherlands;

Study Medication (Development, Manufacturing & Supply): R.M.A. Pinto,

Bluepharma – Indústria Farmacêutica, S.A., Portugal;

Data management: L. Doerwald, Linical Netherlands BV, The Netherlands; S. Manger, Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands.

Adherence monitoring: J. Redol, BeyonDevices LDA, Portugal;

Safety monitoring: K. Prinsen, Clinfidence BV, The Netherlands;

Patient partner: M. Scholte-Voshaar, Stichting Tools (Tools2Use), The Netherlands.

Investigators (other recruiting centers):

T.L.T.A. Jansen, VieCuri – location Venlo, The Netherlands;

C. Codreanu, Clinical Center for Rheumatic Diseases, Bucarest, Rumania;

R.M.Zandhuis-Mooij, MSc, Gelre Ziekenhuis, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands;

E. Molenaar, Groene Hart Ziekenhuis, Gouda, The Netherlands;

J.M. van Laar, UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands;

Y.P.M. Ruiterman, Haga Ziekenhuis, Den Haag, The Netherlands;

A.E.R.C.H. Boonen, MUMC, Maastricht, The Netherlands;

M. Micaelo, Instituto Português de Reumatologia, Lisboa, Portugal;

J. Costa, Hospital de Ponte Lima, Portugal;

M. Sieburg, Rheumatologische Facharztpraxis Magdeburg, Germany;

J.P.L. Spoorenberg, UMC Groningen, The Netherlands;

U. Prothmann, Knappschaftsklinikum Saar GbmH, Puettlingen, Germany;

M.J. Saavedra, Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisboa, Portugal;

I. Silva, Hospital de Egas Moniz, Lisboa, Portugal;

M.T. Nurmohamed, Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

J.W.G. Jacobs, UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands; and

S.W. Tas, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Scientific Advisory Committee:

J.W.J. Bijlsma, UMC Utrecht, The Netherlands;

R. Christensen, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark;

Y.M. Smulders, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, The Netherlands; and

S.H. Ralston, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Radiographic assessment:

D.M.F.M. van der Heijde (Imaging Rheumatology BV, the Netherlands)

coordinated the reading of the hand and foot x-rays.

A.F. Marsman and W.F. Lems scored the spine X-rays.

Patient panel:

C. Rusthoven and M. Bakkers, The Netherlands

E. Frazão Mateus, and G. Mendes, Portugal

C. Elling-Audersch and D. Borucki, Germany

A. Cardone, Italy

P. Corduta and O. Constantinescu, Romania

P. Richards, United Kingdom

G. Aanerud, Norway

Disclosure of Interests

Maarten Boers Consultant of: Novartis, Linda Hartman: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Ewo Pharma, UCB, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Marc R Kok: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva: None declared, Eduard N. Griep: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, Paul Baudoin: None declared, Hennie Raterman Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Ewo Pharma, UCB, Zoltán Szekanecz: None declared, Frank Buttgereit Consultant of: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Gruenenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Pavol MASARYK: None declared, Thomas Klausch: None declared, Sabrina Paolino: None declared, Annemarie M. Schilder Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, WIllem Lems Consultant of: Pfizer, Galapagos, Lilly, Amgen, UCB., Maurizio Cutolo: None declared

OP0270 TAPERING OF LONG-TERM, LOW-DOSE GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN SENIOR RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS: FOLLOW-UP OF THE PRAGMATIC, MULTICENTRE, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED GLORIA TRIAL

Background

Guidelines suggest glucocorticoids (GC) should be used as bridge therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but many patients are treated chronically with low doses. The effects of withdrawal in such patients has not been studied extensively.

Objectives

To study disease activity score (DAS28), disease flares and signs of adrenal insufficiency after withdrawal of blinded trial medication (prednisolone 5 mg/day or placebo for 2 years).

Methods

The 2-year, double-blind GLORIA trial evaluated the long-term benefits and harms of low dose GC added to standard care (see main GLORIA trial abstract). Senior RA patients (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to prednisolone 5 mg/day or placebo.

After the final trial visit study medication was linearly tapered to zero in 3 months by adding a stop day every two weeks, and patients were reassessed. Those who successfully completed the trial and did not receive open-label GC during the 4 weeks after the final trial visit were included in this follow-up study.

The primary outcome was change in DAS28 at follow-up compared to the final trial visit. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of disease flares (DAS28 increase > 0.6 or open-label GC between week 4 and 12 of the taper phase) and signs of adrenal insufficiency, assessed by 9 items selected from the 57-symptom list from the MDHAQ questionnaire (1) and hypotension (systolic RR < 90 or diastolic RR < 60). In a subset of patients from 3 Dutch centres, cortisol and ACTH were measured in spot serum samples during the follow-up visit.

Analysis of covariance assessed the change in DAS28. Linear regression and chi-square test were used for the remaining outcomes.

Results

278 participants completed the GLORIA study, 21 received GC within 4 weeks after the end of the trial, 58 had missing data, leaving 199 patients eligible for this study.

34 patients received open label GC after 4 weeks and were excluded for the primary analysis. In the remaining 165 patients (80 prednisolone, 85 placebo), mean (SD) DAS28 was higher on placebo: 3.14 (1.04) vs 2.92 (1.13) prednisolone at the final trial visit. After tapering, disease activity increased significantly (p=0.02) in the prednisolone group to 3.18 (1.20) but was stable in placebo (3.14). The difference in the increase of DAS28 between the groups was 0.21 (95%CI –0.05;0.47; p=0.11).

For signs of adrenal insufficiency, 33 out of 165 had missing data, leaving 60 in the prednisolone group and 72 in placebo (Table 1). Mean (SD) number of signs for prednisolone was 1.1 (1.1) versus 0.9 (1.3) for placebo at final trial visit and 0.8 (1.2) versus 0.8 (1.0) at follow-up. Difference in the change of the number of signs was –0.1 (95%CI –0.4;0.3; p=0.66).

Table 1.

Adrenal insufficiency signs and symptoms.

prednisolone (n=60)placebo(n=72)end of trialchange after 3 monthsend of trialchange after 3 monthsFatigue (unusual)15113–1Appetite loss5–144Muscle weakness7–26–2Dizziness32101Stomach pain3431Muscle pain19–619–1Nausea5–322Vomiting1001Diarrhoea5–23–2Hypotension*2–14–2Sum**1.1 (1.1)–0.2 (1.3)0.9 (1.3)0.0 (1.3)

* Systolic RR < 90 or diastolic RR < 60.

**Mean (SD)

No differences were seen in ACTH or cortisol levels: mean (SD) ACTH was 5.8 (4.1) in 23 prednisolone patients, and 5.1 (3.7) in 24 placebo patients; cortisol 296 (113) v 310 (166), cortisol/ACTH 67 (40) v 77 (54). Two prednisolone and one placebo patient had cortisol levels below 80. None developed clinical hypoadrenalism during further follow-up.

199 patients qualified for the disease flares sample, 99 prednisolone and 100 placebo; 44 patients flared on prednisolone tapering vs 31 on placebo, relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 0.99; 2.07; p=0.07).

Conclusion

Tapering prednisolone moderately increases disease activity to placebo levels (mean still at low disease activity levels) and numerically increases the risk of flare without any evidence of adrenal insufficiency. This suggests that withdrawal of low dose prednisolone is feasible after 2 years of administration.

References

[1]DeWalt DA et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2004;22:453-61.

Acknowledgements

The GLORIA trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT02585258.

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‘’Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests

Abdullah Almayali: None declared, Maarten Boers Consultant of: Novartis, Linda Hartman: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Ewo Pharma, UCB, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Marc R Kok: None declared, José Antonio P. da Silva: None declared, Eduard N. Griep: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, Paul Baudoin: None declared, Hennie Raterman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme and UCB, Zoltán Szekanecz: None declared, Frank Buttgereit Consultant of: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Gruenenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Pavol MASARYK: None declared, WIllem Lems Consultant of: Pfizer, Galapagos, Lilly, Amgen, UCB., Maurizio Cutolo: None declared, Marieke ter Wee: None declared

POS1402 COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-UTILITY OF ADD-ON, LOW-DOSE PREDNISOLONE IN RA PATIENTS AGED 65+: THE PRAGMATIC, MULTICENTER, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED GLORIA TRIAL

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease with substantial impact on quality of life, healthcare and societal costs [1]. Current treatment strategies, especially biologic drugs, result in high costs [2]. Previous studies have already found that a combination treatment strategy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s) with initially medium-to-high doses of prednisolone resulted in better effects and lower costs compared to the treatment strategies without prednisolone [3, 4]. However, to our knowledge the cost-effectiveness of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs), and that of GC overall in established RA has not been examined separately.

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of low-dose prednisolone in RA patients aged 65+.

Methods

The economic evaluation was performed as part of the placebo-controlled GLORIA trial of RA patients aged 65+ with a disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) ≥2.60. Eligible patients were randomized to 2 years 5 mg/day prednisolone or placebo. Patients were recruited from 28 clinical centers in seven European countries. All co-treatment, except for chronic oral GC, was allowed.

The economic evaluation had a societal perspective with a time horizon of two years. Cost data were collected with questionnaires and from recorded events, and valued with unit prices of 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the DAS28. For cost-utility, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire.

Standard regression models were used to estimate incremental costs and effects between the treatment groups. Bootstrapping assessed the uncertainty around the average differences in costs and health outcomes.

Results

In total, 444 of 451 randomized patients were included in the modified-intention-to-treat analysis (see main GLORIA study abstract). Patients were on average 72 years and had median 4 active comorbidities at baseline. Mean total costs over 2 years were k€10.8 in the prednisolone group, k€0.4 (95% CI –3.7; 1.9) lower than in the placebo group. Total direct medical costs were k€0.5 (95% CI –4.0; 1.5) lower in the prednisolone group. The mean number of QALYs was similar in both groups (difference 0.02 [–0.03; 0.06] in favor of prednisolone). The DAS28 was 0.38 lower in the prednisolone group than in the placebo group (0.19;0.56).

The cost-effectiveness plane shows that the majority of the bootstrapped cost-effect pairs was situated in the southwest quadrant of the plane confirming the larger effects (i.e. decrease in DAS28) and non-significant lower costs in the prednisolone group (Figure 1). The cost-utility plane shows that the number of QALYs was similar for both groups and that the bootstrapped cost-utility pairs were slightly more located in the southeast quadrant confirming a very small increase in QALYs and slightly lower costs in the prednisolone group (Figure 1).

Conclusion

With greater effectiveness at non-significantly lower costs, low-dose, add-on prednisolone is cost-effective for RA compared to placebo over two years. QALYs were equal in both groups, most likely due to the impact of multiple comorbidities.

References

[1]Kobelt G. Elsevier. 2009;83-9.

[2]Souliotis K et al. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0226287.

[3]Ter Wee MM et al. RMD Open. 2017;3:e000502.

[4]Verhoeven AC et al. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37:1102-9.

Acknowledgements

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‘’Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests

Linda Hartman: None declared, Mohamed El Alili: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Ewo Pharma, UCB, José Antonio P. da Silva: None declared, Zoltán Szekanecz: None declared, Frank Buttgereit Speakers bureau: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Gruenenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Pavol MASARYK: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Marc R Kok: None declared, Sabrina Paolino: None declared, Veerle M. H. Coupé: None declared, WIllem Lems Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Galapagos, Lilly, Amgen, UCB, Maarten Boers Speakers bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer

POS1010 SPINAL RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH PROGRESSION TO ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

Prevention of structural damage of the axial skeleton is an important goal of treatment in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)1. Most studies concerning spinal radiographic progression focused on ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data on spinal radiographic progression in patients with non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA is limited and data on the relation between spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in this population is lacking.

Objectives

To assess long-term spinal radiographic progression in patients with nr-axSpA. Secondly, to explore the association between radiographic progression to AS and spinal radiographic progression in these patients.

Methods

Patients enrolled in the ongoing Groningen Leeuwarden Axial SpA (GLAS) cohort, classified as nr-axSpA at baseline, with pelvic and spinal (lumbar and cervical) radiographs available at baseline and at least one follow-up visit at 2, 4 or 6 years were selected for analyses. Progression from nr-axSpA to AS was defined as progression to modified New York (mNY) sacroiliitis score ≥2 bilaterally or ≥3 unilaterally. Radiographs of nr-axSpA patients were randomized with radiographs of AS patients and scored in known time sequence by two trained readers blinded for patient characteristics. SK and RW scored the SI joints and in case of disagreement in axSpA classification, the score of a third independent reader (AS) was used. SK and MS scored the spinal radiographs according to the modified stoke ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS; 0-72), and the mean of both total scores was calculated. In case of >5 points discrepancy between both readers, the mSASSS of a third independent reader (FM) together with the closest of the scores of the primary readers was used. The mSASSS change of nr-axSpA patients who did en did not progress to AS was compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

Included were 60 patients with a clinical diagnosis of nr-axSpA, confirmed by their sacroiliac radiographic score at baseline. Mean age was 37±10 years, 53% were male, median symptom duration was 9 (IQR 2-17) years, 75% were HLA-B27+, and mean ASDAS was 2.6±1.1.

In total 15 patients progressed to AS. Median mSASSS at baseline was 1.5 (IQR 0.5 – 4.4). Median change in mSASSS from baseline was 0.0 (IQR 0.0 – 1.0) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0.0 – 1.5) at 2 years; 1.2 (IQR 0.3 – 3.5) vs. 2.0 (0.5 – 2.7) at 4 years; and 1.8 (1.0 – 3.8) vs. 2.5 (0.5 – 3.5) at 6 years for non-AS progressors and AS progressors, respectively (Figure 1). These mSASSS changes weres were not significantly different at any timepoint (p = 0.456, p=0.814, p=0.929 for 2-, 4-, and 6-year follow-up, respectively).

Figure 1.

Comparison of mSASSS progression between patients with and without progression to AS during the first 6 years of follow-up.

Conclusion

In our observational cohort of patients with nr-axSpA with up to 6 years of follow-up, mSASSS progression was low (< 1 mSASSS unit/year) and was not different between patients who did and did not progress to AS.

References

[1]Van der Heijde D. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):978-991.

Acknowledgements

The GLAS cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from Novartis.

Disclosure of Interests

Stan Kieskamp: None declared, Mark Siderius: None declared, Rick Wilbrink: None declared, Fiona Maas: None declared, Freke Wink: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Hendrika Bootsma Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Medimmune, Union Chimique Belge, Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche, Suzanne Arends: None declared, Anneke Spoorenberg Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Novartis Pharma, Pfizer

AB0884 Disease outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis completing 12 months of apremilast treatment - Real-world data from the REWARD study

Background

Patients with moderately active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and limited joint involvement have considerable disease burden1,2. Recent data shows these patients have a high likelihood of achieving treatment goals if treated with apremilast3. This is the first report of outcomes in patients with PsA who received apremilast for 12 months in Dutch clinical practice.

Objectives

We report disease outcomes, including the PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID) 12-item questionnaire, swollen joint count (SJC), tender joint count (TJC), dactylitis and enthesitis, among patients in the prospective, multicenter, observational REWARD study who completed 12 months of apremilast treatment.

Methods

The ongoing REWARD study enrolled patients who had initiated apremilast for the treatment of PsA in the Netherlands between 13 April 2017 and 24 March 2021, and includes up to 12 months follow-up1,4. We report interim data from patients with data available as of 16 September 2021. Baseline data are summarized separately for patients who discontinued apremilast before their month 12 study visit (stoppers) and patients still receiving apremilast at their month 12 visit (completers). Post baseline data are summarized for completers. Continuous data are summarized using mean and SD, categorical data are summarized using n and percent.

Results

98 patients were included in this interim analysis; 32 had completed 12 months of apremilast treatment (completers), 54 had discontinued apremilast before month 12 (stoppers), 12 were ongoing in the study. Compared with stoppers, completers were more likely to be biologic naïve and have dactylitis, and had lower BSA. All other baseline characteristics were similar (Table 1). Among completers, all PsAID domains improved after 3 months of apremilast treatment and these improvements were maintained through month 12 (Figure 1). Mean SJC and TJC decreased between baseline and month 12 (SJC, 4.2 and 1.0 at baseline and month 12, respectively; TJC, 7.1 and 3.3, respectively). The proportion of completers with SJC, TJC, enthesitis and dactylitis scores of 0 increased from baseline to month 12 (Figure 1B). The proportion of completers reporting at least one adverse event (AE) was comparable to the overall study population (14/32 [44%] and 48/98 [49%], respectively); the reported adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of apremilast.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics

All=all patients included in this interim analysis; Completers= patients that received apremilast for 12 months; Stoppers= patients that stopped apremilast treatment prior to 12 months.

BMI=Body Mass Index, PsO=Psoriasis, BSA PsO= Body Surface Area Psoriasis, SJC=Swollen Joint Count, TJC=Tender Joint Count, PsAID=Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease, VAS=Visual Analog Scale, CRP= C-reactive protein, cDAPSA=Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis, Rem=Remission, Mod=Moderate, PsA= Psoriatic Arthritis

Figure 1.

(A) PSAID scores in completers and (B) percentage of completers with no swollen joints, no tender joints, no dactylitis and no enthesitis at baseline (BSL), month 3, 6 and 12 (M3, M6, M12).

Conclusion

In this interim analysis of the REWARD study, patients completing 12 months of apremilast treatment were more likely to be biologic naïve than patients who discontinued apremilast within 12 months of initiation, and had significant decreases in TJC, SJC, dactylitis and enthesis during apremilast treatment. Completed patients also reported decreased PsAID scores during apremilast treatment, indicating improvements in their quality of life.

References

[1]Jansen TL, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019; 78:913 [abstract FRI0442]

[2]Wervers et al. J Rheumatol. 2018;45:1526.

[3]Mease PJ, et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020; 72, 6, 814–821

[4]Bos R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021; 80:805 [POS1053]

Acknowledgements

Sylvia de Jong and Claire Desborough, Amgen employees, provided medical writing and editorial assistance.

Disclosure of Interests

Reinhard Bos Consultant of: AbbVie BV, Genzyme Europe, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Tim Jansen Speakers bureau: Grunenthal, Sobi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Grant/research support from: ReumaNederland, Olatec, Grunenthal, Ian Bridges Shareholder of: Amgen, Employee of: Amgen, Sylvia de Jong Shareholder of: Amgen, Employee of: Amgen, Novartis, Marijn Vis Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer

AB0160 HIGH NUMBER OF CONCOMITANT MEDICATIONS AND COMORBIDITIES AT BASELINE IN THE GLUCOCORTICOID LOW-DOSE OUTCOME IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (GLORIA) STUDY: AN OLDER POPULATION WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Treatment with low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) (≤7.5 mg prednisolone) in combination with standard care is highly effective in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but despite 70 years of clinical experience, evidence-based information on its balance of benefit and harm is incomplete. This leads to an ongoing debate, with under- and over-use of GCs as result. The GLORIA pragmatic trial was developed to assess harm, benefit and costs of low-dose GCs added to the standard treatment of older RA patients.

Objectives:

The objective of this abstract is to document the baseline status and frequency of comorbid conditions in the GLORIA study population. The results of the unblinded data will be submitted as late-breaking abstract.

Methods:

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (1) was open for patients with RA according to the 1987 or 2010 (2) criteria, age ≥65 years, and disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28) of ≥2.6. Patients were recruited from rheumatology clinics in Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Eligible patients were randomized to two years of treatment with daily 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo. All other medication was allowed, except for GCs. The presented data are blinded because the database is not closed yet.

Results:

The population consists of 451 patients with mean disease duration 10.6 (Q1-Q3: 3-15) years. The majority (70%) is female, mean age is 72.5 (Q1-Q3: 68-76, range: 65-88) years, 66% were positive for rheumatoid factor and 56% for ACPA. Patients had a mean of 4.3 (SD 2.8) comorbidities besides RA (3.4 active) and therefore used multiple concomitant medications (3.9 (SD 3.4)) (Table 1). The most common comorbidities (provisional data of 161 patients with complete coding) in this older population are: vascular disorders (58%), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (57%) and a history of surgical and medical procedures (45%). Patients were most frequently on beta blocking agents (22%, mainly metoprolol) and HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (20%, mainly simvastatin). Most patients also have an extensive history of anti-rheumatic treatment. At the start of the trial most patients (82%) were on cDMARD treatment; 15% were on bDMARDs/tsDMARDs. Almost half of the patients previously had been treated with GCs, with a mean duration of 3.4 years and a mean last dose of 4.6 mg/day.

Conclusion:

The baseline data shows that we have an older study population who have relatively many other comorbidities next to RA and who are almost all treated with multiple concomitant medications in addition to the study medication. Therefore, we expect to report a high adverse event rate. Research among older patients is urgently needed, but the frailty of this population as represented by the multiple comorbidities and concomitant medications have to be taken into account in the analyses and interpretation of the results.

References:

[1]Hartman L, Rasch LA, Klausch T, Bijlsma HWJ, Christensen R, Smulders YM, et al. Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19:67.

[2]Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:2569-81.

Table 1.

Comorbidities and concomitant medications at baseline in the GLORIA trial.

MeanSDRangeComorbidities 4.32.8 0-15 Active 3.4 Past 1.9Concomitant medications (count) 3.93.4 0-15 Beta blocking agents (%)22 HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (%)20 Platelet aggregation inhibitors (%)16 ACE inhibitors (%)12 Angiotensin II antagonists (%)11DAS28 4.521.05DAS28CRP 4.060.97HAQ (0-3) 1.20.7RA treatmentCurrent (%)Previous (%) cDMARD8492 bDMARD/tsDMARD1522 NSAID5129 Glucocorticoids 049

Acknowledgements:

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‘’Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS1053 COMPARISON OF BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN PATIENTS CONTINUING OR DISCONTINUING APREMILAST AT TWELVE MONTHS IN THE REWARD STUDY (THE NETHERLANDS)

Background:

Previous analysis of the REWARD study reported that patients with limited joint involvement have a considerable burden of disease1. Recent data suggest that patients with moderately active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and a limited joint involvement have a high likelihood of achieving treatment goals when treated with apremilast2. According to EULAR recommendations a PDE4 inhibitor may be considered in patients with mild disease and an inadequate response to at least one csDMARD, in whom neither a bDMARD nor a JAK inhibitor is appropriate and the value of apremilast may be found in treating patients with relatively mild disease (oligoarticular)3.

Objectives:

The objective of this prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study is to describe patient reported outcomes, effectiveness and real-life use of apremilast in patients with PsA. Patients will be followed up for a maximum of 12 months. This interim analysis compared the baseline characteristics and experience on apremilast for two subgroups of patients, those remaining on apremilast versus the ones that discontinued.

Methods:

In this interim analysis we included patients with data available at cut-off date of 03 November 2020. Patient enrollment and follow up of current subjects is ongoing. Descriptive statistics (n’s and percents for categorical data, means for continuous data) were used to summarize the baseline data by subgroup. Kaplan Meier plots are presented to show patients’ experience on apremilast by subgroup.

Results:

85 patients were included in the analysis. 30 patients have completed the study, 39 patients have discontinued and 16 are ongoing. At baseline 22 (26%) patients were biologic experienced and 62 (74%) were biologic naïve. Both groups had a comparable disease activity measured with clinical disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (cDAPSA) scores. Biologic experienced patients had a longer disease duration compared to biologic naïve patients (mean 9.7 vs 6.2 years). Inefficacy of previous medication was the main reason for starting apremilast in both subgroups. Overall, 86% (n=69) of patients were still receiving apremilast at month 3, 60% (n=46) at month 6, and 41% (n=26) at month 12 (Figure 1). Drug survival (length of time until discontinuation of apremilast) for biologic naïve patients was 93% at month 3, 73% at month 6 and 58% at month 12. Drug survival of biologic experienced patients was 67%, 20%, and 0% at months 3, 6, and 12, respectively. At baseline mean values of body mass index (BMI), swollen joint count (SJC), tender joint count (TJC), psoriatic arthritis impact of disease (PsAID) were comparable between both groups (Table 1). Reasons for discontinuation were mainly lack of efficacy (49%) and adverse events (44%). In this analysis the nature and frequency of adverse events is in line with the known profile of apremilast.

Conclusion:

In this interim analysis, patients who were biologic naïve had a better probability to remain on treatment than those who were biologic experienced. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, apart from disease duration that was longer in the biologic experienced group. Best drug survival is achieved when apremilast is prescribed earlier in the PsA treatment course, before biologics and after csDMARDs, as per apremilast EU label.

References:

[1]Jansen TL, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:913 [abstract FRI0442]

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Arthritis Care Res 2020 72 6 814–821

[3]Gossec L, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:700–712

Disclosure of Interests:

Reinhard Bos Consultant of: AbbVie BV, Genzyme Europe, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Tim Jansen Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation – consultant, Speakers bureau: Grunenthal, Sobi – speakers bureau, Grant/research support from: ReumaNederland, Olatec, Grunenthal – grant/research support, Sylvia de Jong Shareholder of: Employee of Amgen Inc, Employee of: Employee of Amgen Inc, Antonio Castiglia Shareholder of: Employee of Amgen Inc, Employee of: Employee of Amgen Inc, Marijn Vis Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer.

POS1014 CENTRAL SENSITIZATION HAS MAJOR IMPACT ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Maintaining optimal health-related quality of life (QoL) is the ultimate goal of treatment in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Chronic pain has a large potential impact on QoL. Central sensitization (CS) may explain part of the chronic pain in axSpA. However, the role of central sensitization (CS) herein has only been studied to a limited degree and current axSpA guidelines pay little attention to identification and treatment of CS.

Objectives:

To explore the relationship between CS and QoL in axSpA.

Methods:

Consecutive outpatients with axSpA from the Groningen Leeuwarden Axial Spondyloarthritis (GLAS) cohort were included. CS was assessed with the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI; 0-100), QoL with the AS Quality of Life questionnaire (ASQoL; 0-18) and disease activity with the AS Disease Activity Score (ASDASCRP). A high probability of CS was defined as CSI score ≥40 and active disease as ASDASCRP score ≥2.1. Patient characteristics and clinical assessments were compared between groups with CSI score <40 and ≥40.(1) Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between CSI and ASQoL scores, correcting for potential confounders.

Results:

Of the 178 axSpA patients with available CSI score, 149 completed the ASQoL. Mean age of the 178 included patients was 47.4 ± 14.1 years, 78 (44%) were female, mean symptom duration was 21.4 ± 13.6 years and 88 (52%) were using bDMARDS. Mean CSI score was 38.0 ± 14.1, mean ASQoL 6.0 ± 5.3 and mean ASDASCRP 2.1 ± 1.0. CSI score ≥40 was significantly associated with higher mean ASQoL (9.7 vs. 3.3), higher mean ASDASCRP (2.6 vs. 1.7), female gender (60% vs. 29%) and more often entheseal involvement (61% vs. 26%) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Selection of patient characteristics, disease activity and clinical outcome variables for patients with axSpA, divided in subgroups for CSI score with a cutoff point of 40.

CharacteristicsAll patientsn = 178CSI<40n = 98 (55%)CSI≥40n = 80 (45%)Age (years)47.4 ± 14.148.7 ± 15.045.8 ± 12.7Female78 (44)27 (29)44 (60)*Symptom duration (years)21.4 ± 13.621.5 ± 13.521.2 ± 13.8HLA-B27+133 (79)70 (79)54 (79)Smoker45 (27)28 (32)15 (23)BMI (kg/m2)26.7 ± 5.026.2 ± 4.427.5 ± 5.8Completed higher education181 (71)48 (70)34 (76)Biological use88 (52)49 (52)39 (51)RDCI (0-9)0.0 (0.0 – 1.0)0.0 (0.0 – 1.0)0.0 (0.0 – 1.8)Peripheral arthritis210 (6)5 (6)5 (8)Entheseal involvement364 (40)23 (26)38 (61)*ASDASCRP2.1 ± 1.01.7 ± 0.92.6 ± 1.0*CRP (mg/ml)2.9 (1.1 – 6.8)2.6 (1.1-6.0)3.6 (1.4 – 7.0)ASQoL (0-18)6.0 ± 5.33.3 ± 3.69.7 ± 4.9*CSI (0-100)38.0 ± 14.128.0 (23 – 34)50.0 (43.0 –56.0)N/A

Values are n (%), mean ± SD or median (IQR).

1International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level >4; 2Swollen Joint Count >0; 3Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score >0. *p<0.001. ASDASCRP: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; ASQoL: Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire; CRP: C-reactive protein; CSI: Central Sensitization Inventory; RDCI: Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index.

Patients with low ASDASCRP (<2.1) and also low CSI score (<40) showed good QoL (median ASQoL 1.1). Patients with low ASDASCRP combined with high CSI score (≥40) and patients with high ASDASCRP (≥2.1) combined with low CSI score reported worse QoL (median ASQoL 5.6 and 4.1, respectively). Patients with high ASDASCRP and also high CSI score reported the worst QoL (median ASQoL 12.0). (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

ASQoL score in patients with axSpA with CSI score ≥40 and <40, divided for ASDASCRP (cutoff 2.1)

Additionally, in univariable analysis, the CSI score explained a large proportion of the variation of the ASQoL (R2=0.46). This association remained significant after correction for ASDASCRP, gender, symptom duration, entheseal involvement, smoking status, BMI category, educational level and comorbidities in multivariable analysis (CSI p<0.001).

Conclusion:

In daily clinical practice, CS seems strongly related to patient-reported QoL in patients with long-term axSpA.

References:

[1]Neblett R et al. J Pain. 2013;14:438–45.

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to thank all patients who participated in the GLAS cohort. Furthermore, the authors wish to acknowledge Mrs. B. Burmania, Mrs. B. Hollander, Mrs. S. Katerbarg, Mrs. S. Lange, Mrs. E. Markenstein, Mrs. R. Rumph and Mrs. M. de Vries-Veldman for their contribution to clinical data collection.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stan Kieskamp: None declared, Davy Paap: None declared, Marlies Carbo: None declared, Freke Wink Consultant of: Abbvie, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Hendrika Bootsma Grant/research support from: Roche, Suzanne Arends Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Anneke Spoorenberg Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis.

AB1165 MEDICATION ADHERENCE DATA IN A RANDOMIZED TRIAL: LARGE CHALLENGES TO COME FROM RAW DATA TO A WORKABLE AND RELIABLE DATASET

Background:

Medication adherence in the GLORIA trial, among elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis, is measured with caps that register openings of the medication bottle. At each study visit, one or two medication bottles with cap (kits) are dispensed, each containing 90 capsules. Multiple steps are needed to come to a workable dataset to describe adherence.

Objectives:

To describe the steps that are needed to come from raw data to a workable dataset to analyze adherence data that are recorded by electronic caps.

Methods:

The medication bottle contains a cap with the ability to register cap openings. The raw dataset from the caps consist of an excel file with one opening event per row, recorded as date and time. One cap yields approximately 90 rows. First, the kit numbers were matched to the corresponding patient numbers, that are recorded in another excel file. Instances where two kits were dispensed were recorded with two kit numbers in one cell and need to be copied to two cells with one kit number. Second, the VLOOKUP function was used to combine dates and kit numbers. One row now contains all openings from one kit. Then, the number of days between first opening and each next opening date was calculated. A range of 90 days was made to calculate how many times the bottle was opened on each day of the 90-days period. The results were color-coded to visualize instances of zero, one or ≥two openings on a day.

Results:

The colored calendar matrix (Figure 1) can now be used to categorize adherence patterns.

Conclusion:

A monitoring cap seems a simple instrument to measure adherence. However, multiple steps and a lot of time are needed to come to a workable dataset for the study of adherence patterns.

Acknowledgments:

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‟Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests:

Linda Hartman: None declared, Elisa Alessandri: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Speakers bureau: as declared, Marc R Kok Grant/research support from: BMS and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis and Galapagos, Hanneke Griep-Wentink: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, George Bruyn: None declared, Hennie Raterman Grant/research support from: UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Sqibb, Cellgene and Sanofi Genzyme, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Nuno Gomes: None declared, Rui Pinto: None declared, Thomas Klausch: None declared, WIllem Lems Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Maarten Boers: None declared

FRI0581 IN ELDERLY PATIENTS, CAPS THAT RECORD MEDICATION BOTTLE OPENINGS ARE UNRELIABLE AND THUS NOT THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ADHERENCE

Background:

Adherence is a serious problem in treatment of inflammatory diseases. To measure adherence, caps that record medication bottle openings may be superior to capsule counts (1). In the ongoing two-year GLORIA trial on the addition of low-dose (5 mg) prednisolone or placebo to standard of care in elderly patients (65+ years) with rheumatoid arthritis, adherence was measured in both ways during the whole trial.

Objectives:

To describe adherence patterns, and to compare adherence as assessed with adherence caps and with capsule counts in the GLORIA trial.

Methods:

The recorded adherence patterns of patients (blinded for treatment group) were classified according to descriptive categories. Overall adherence according to number of bottle openings was compared with adherence according to the capsule count. Good adherence was defined as 80%: i.e. for caps 80% of days one opening recorded, and for counts less than 20% of prescribed tablets returned at the subsequent visit. Each patient has a maximum of 8 periods of 90 days.

Results:

Trial inclusion has closed in 2018 at 452 patients; the current dataset contains adherence data of 385 patients. Mean number of recorded 90-day periods per patient was 4 (range 1-8). Based on capsule counts over all periods, 90% of the patients met the 80% threshold of adherence; based on cap data only 31% met this criterion.

The four adherence patterns are shown in a calendar matrix, with yellow for zero, green for one and blue for ≥two openings on a day (Figure 1). Bottles were supposed to be opened once a day.

Patients were categorized according to the opening pattern seen in at least 50% of assessed periods:

32% non-use(<20% of the days an opening);26% stable use(≥80% of the days 1 opening);40% irregular use(different adherence patterns, in or between periods);2% weekly use(1 opening per week).

Conclusion:

In our trial of elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients, patients appeared to be mostly adherent according to conventional capsule counts. Results from adherence caps were highly discrepant with the capsule counts, with patterns suggesting patients did not use the bottle for daily dispensing, despite specific advice to do so.

References:

[1] El Alili M, Vrijens B, Demonceau J, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. A scoping review of studies comparing the medication event monitoring system (MEMS) with alternative methods for measuring medication adherence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016;82:268-79.

Acknowledgments:

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‘’Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests:

Linda Hartman: None declared, Sabrina Paolino: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Speakers bureau: as declared, Marc R Kok Grant/research support from: BMS and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis and Galapagos, Hanneke Griep-Wentink: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, George Bruyn: None declared, Hennie Raterman Grant/research support from: UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Sqibb, Cellgene and Sanofi Genzyme, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Nuno Gomes: None declared, Rui Pinto: None declared, Thomas Klausch: None declared, WIllem Lems Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Maarten Boers: None declared

OP0080 CENTRAL SENSITIZATION AND ILLNESS PERCEPTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN INTERPRETING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Up to 40% of ankylosing spondylitis patients report persistently high pain scores of >4 (scale of 0-10) even after responding to long-term TNF-alpha blocking therapy.[1] In other rheumatic diseases, nociplastic pain (due to altered functioning of the nervous system leading to peripheral and central sensitization) is common.[2] In axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), patient illness and pain perceptions were shown to influence disease outcome.[3] Therefore, we hypothesized that central sensitization and patients’ illness perceptions are associated with persistently high disease activity in axSpA.

Objectives:

To investigate to what extent central sensitization, pain catastrophizing and patients’ perceptions play a role in axSpA and to explore associations with disease activity.

Methods:

Between April and September 2019, consecutive outpatients from the Groningen Leeuwarden axSpA (GLAS) cohort,[4] an ongoing large prospective cohort, were included in this study. Besides the standardized assessments, patients filled out three additional questionnaires: Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to investigate the association of CSI, PCS and each of the eight subscales of the IPQ-R, and disease activity assessments ASDAS-CRP, BASDAI, and CRP. We corrected for the following potential confounders: gender, symptom duration, BMI, educational level, smoking status and HLA-B27 status.

Results:

Of 171 included patients, 58% were male, 79% were HLA-B27 positive, median symptom duration was 21 (IQR 10-32), mean ASDAS-CRP 2.1 ± 1.0, mean BASDAI 3.9 ± 2.2 and median CRP 2.9 (IQR 1.2-6.3). Mean CSI score was 37.8 ± 14.1 (scale of 0-100), and 44% of patients scored ≥40 on the CSI.[5] Median PCS score was 15 (IQR 7-22) (scale of 0-52), median IPQ-R illness identity subscore 3 (IQR 2-4) (scale of 0-14) and mean IPQ-R treatment control subscore 18.1 ± 3.4 (scale of 5-25). In univariable regression analysis, CSI and PCS scores and IPQ-R subscores all showed significant associations with ASDAS-CRP, and all except the IPQ-R subscale personal control showed significant associations with BASDAI. Only IPQ-R treatment control was significantly associated with CRP. Central sensitization, two IPQ-R subscales (perceived treatment control and the number of symptoms patients attributed to their axSpA: illness identity) and BMI were independently associated with disease activity assessments BASDAI (R2=0.46) and ASDAS-CRP (R2=0.36) (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

In this axSpA population with long-term disease, 44% scored above the CSI cutoff point of 40, indicating a high probability of central sensitization. CSI score, illness identity and treatment control were independently associated with disease activity assessments.

References:

[1]Arends Set al.Clin Exp Rheumatol 2017;35(1):61-8.

[2]Meeus Met al.Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012;41(4):556-67.

[3]Van Lunteren Met al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2018;70(12):1829-39.

[4]Arends Set al.Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13(3):R94.

[5]Neblett Ret al.J Pain 2013;14(5):438-45.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stan Kieskamp: None declared, Davy Paap: None declared, Marlies Carbo: None declared, Freke Wink Consultant of: Abbvie, Janssen, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Hendrika Bootsma Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche, Consultant of: Consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis, Medimmune, Union Chimique Belge, Speakers bureau: Speaker for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis., Suzanne Arends Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Pfizer, Anneke Spoorenberg: None declared

SAT0285 VISUALISATION OF THE ACTIVE CALCIFICATION PROCESS WITH 18-F SODIUM FLUORIDE PET/CT IN LIMITED CUTANEOUS SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS WITH CALCINOSIS CUTIS IS FEASIBLE: A PILOT STUDY

Background:

Calcinosis cutis is a major daily challenge to patients with longstanding systemic sclerosis (SSc), negatively affecting their quality of life. Unfortunately, treatment options are very limited due to lack of understanding of the pathogenetic process. Currently, calcinosis cutis is only detected at its irreversible end-stage. Early detection of calcinosis cutis could putatively allow early disease-modifying interventions and monitor treatment effects.

Objectives:

The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility of visualising “active” micro-calcifications with 18-F Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET scanning, compared to low-dose CT in patients with clinically overt calcinosis cutis.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional, observational, pilot study. All patients met 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria for SSc. Patients underwent a whole body NaF PET/low-dose CT scan, scanned 90 minutes post-injection. (Sub)cutaneous calcifications were described and assessed on NaF PET, which was compared to CT images by two independent investigators.

Results:

A total of 10 female patients with limited cutaneous SSc [median age 56 years (IQR 52-66), median disease duration 17 years (8-19), PAH 10%, ILD 20%] were included, and compared to 10 controls [70 years (65-73)]. NaF uptake showed normal distribution throughout the skeletal bones, arterial tree, and visceral organs, which was comparable between patients and controls. Additionally, NaF uptake was visible in the skin of all SSc patients, but in none of the controls. Cutaneous NaF uptake largely correlated with clinical calcifications. Most common sites of cutaneous NaF uptake were fingers (6 patients) and knees (7 patients). Only 5% of the NaF positive lesions were not accompanied by visible calcifications on CT. Furthermore, of all calcified lesions seen on CT, 51% showed uptake on NaF PET. Small lesions (<1 cm), were generally only visible on CT, due to lower resolution of NaF PET.

Conclusion:

Imaging of “active” calcinosis cutis in limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis is feasible using NaF PET scanning. Most clinically overt calcifications and half of those seen on CT were positive for NaF uptake. Whether these “active” calcifications behave differently in terms of faster progression, clinical complaints, and infection risk, and whether these are potentially suitable for disease modifying interventions is subject to future study.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

Improvement of AOAC Official Method 984.27 for the Determination of Nine Nutritional Elements in Food Products by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy After Microwave Digestion: Single-Laboratory Validation and Ring Trial

A single-laboratory validation (SLV) and a ring trial (RT) were undertaken to determine nine nutritional elements in food products by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy in order to improve and update AOAC Official Method 984.27. The improvements involved optimized microwave digestion, selected analytical lines, internal standardization, and ion buffering. Simultaneous determination of nine elements (calcium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, phosphorus, and zinc) was made in food products. Sample digestion was performed through wet digestion of food samples by microwave technology with either closed or open vessel systems. Validation was performed to characterize the method for selectivity, sensitivity, linearity, accuracy, precision, recovery, ruggedness, and uncertainty. The robustness and efficiency of this method was proved through a successful internal RT using experienced food industry laboratories. Performance characteristics are reported for 13 certified and in-house reference materials, populating the AOAC triangle food sectors, which fulfilled AOAC criteria and recommendations for accuracy (trueness, recovery, and z-scores) and precision (repeatability and reproducibility RSD and HorRat values) regarding SLV and RT. This multielemental method is cost-efficient, time-saving, accurate, and fit-for-purpose according to ISO 17025 Norm and AOAC acceptability criteria, and is proposed as an improved version of AOAC Official Method 984.27 for fortified food products, including infant formula.

A New Enzyme Immunoassay for Soluble Fibrin in Plasma, with a High Discriminating Power for Thrombotic Disorders

Fibrin formation is a multistep process initiated by thrombin. At first thrombin converts fibrinogen to fibrin molecules which in vivo form soluble complexes with fibrinogen. Soluble fibrin is considered to be an early biochemical marker for intravascular fibrin formation and impending thrombotic events, such as deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC).

A new enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was developed on the basis of a monoclonal antibody directed against a fibrin specific neo-epitope located on the gamma-chain of fibrinogen; γ-(312-324). In addition, it was possible to prepare a lyophilized reference material of thrombin-generated soluble fibrin, that allowed for full antigen recovery after reconstitution with buffer. Assay conditions, e.g. solid phase-Ig concentration and buffer composition, sample and conjugate dilution, and incubation times were optimised.

The present assay was found to be specific (no interference of homologous antigens) and reproducible (intra-assay CV 4-8%, inter-assay CV 4-9%), and therefore highly suited for measuring soluble fibrin levels in a plasma milieu. The median normal value for soluble fibrin was determined in plasma samples obtained from apparently healthy volunteers (n = 81) and found to be 0.040 μg/ml, with a range (10-90 percentiles) of 0.026-0.059 μg/ml.

A retrospective study showed that soluble fibrin levels were highly significantly increased in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of DIC (median 1.042 μg FEU/ml, range 0.160-2.319 μg/ml, n = 21, P <0.0001 vs normal), PE (median 0.527 μg FEU/ml, range 0.084-1.234 μg/ml, n = 29, P <0.0001 vs normal) and DVT (median 0.126 μg FEU/ml, range 0.059-0.878 μg/ml, n = 36, P <0.0001 vs normal), as determined by the Mann-Whitney U-Test.

Diseases due to unhealthy environments: an updated estimate of the global burden of disease attributable to environmental determinants of health

Background

The update of the global burden of disease attributable to the environment is presented. The study focuses on modifiable risks to show the potential health impact from environmental interventions.

Methods

Systematic literature reviews on 133 diseases and injuries were performed. Comparative risk assessments were complemented by more limited epidemiological estimates, expert opinion and information on disease transmission pathways. Population attributable fractions were used to calculate global deaths and global disease burden from environmental risks.

Results

Twenty-three percent (95% CI: 13-34%) of global deaths and 22% (95% CI: 13-32%) of global disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were attributable to environmental risks in 2012. Sixty-eight percent of deaths and 56% of DALYs could be estimated with comparative risk assessment methods. The global disease burden attributable to the environment is now dominated by noncommunicable diseases. Susceptible ages are children under five and adults between 50 and 75 years. Country level data are presented.

Conclusions

Nearly a quarter of global disease burden could be prevented by reducing environmental risks. This analysis confirms that eliminating hazards and reducing environmental risks will greatly benefit our health, will contribute to attaining the recently agreed Sustainable Development Goals and will systematically require intersectoral collaboration to be successful.

Coping in adult patients with severe haemophilia

An adequate use of coping strategies could help patients to deal with disease-related stress. The study aim was to explore coping behaviour in adult patients with severe haemophilia and its possible determinants. Coping was assessed through three basic dimensions (task-oriented, emotion-oriented and avoidance coping), using the short version of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-21). Patients' scores were compared with Dutch working men (N = 374), according to three categories: low use (<P25 of normal), average use (P25-P75) and high use (>P75). Determinants were measured using questionnaires on activities (Haemophilia Activities List), participation (Impact on Participation and Autonomy Questionnaire), physical functioning [physical component of the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales-2 (D-AIMS2)] and socio-psychological health (psychological component of the D-AIMS2). In total, 86 adults with severe haemophilia (FVIII/IX<1%) were included. The median age was 38 years (range: 18-68) with 85% affected with haemophilia A and 75% using prophylaxis. Patients with haemophilia used task-oriented coping as frequently as the control group (P = 0.13); but used significantly less emotion-oriented coping (57% vs. 25%, P < 0.05) and avoidance coping (P < 0.05). Emotion-oriented coping showed a strong correlation with socio-psychological health (r = 0.67) and weak correlations with participation (r = 0.32) and social interaction (r = 0.29). Other associations of coping strategies with patient characteristics of health status could not be demonstrated. Overall, patients predominantly used the task-oriented approach to deal with their disease; the use of this strategy was comparable to the control group. Having a poor psychological health, less social interaction and/or less participation in daily life was associated with an increased use of emotion-oriented coping.

Identification of biomarkers to detect residual pertussis toxin using microarray analysis of dendritic cells

In this study we aimed to identify genes that are responsive to pertussis toxin (PTx) and might eventually be used as biological markers in a testing strategy to detect residual PTx in vaccines. By microarray analysis we screened six human cell types (bronchial epithelial cell line BEAS-2B, fetal lung fibroblast cell line MRC-5, primary cardiac microvascular endothelial cells, primary pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells, hybrid cell line EA.Hy926 of umbilical vein endothelial cells and epithelial cell line A549 and immature monocyte-derived dendritic cells) for differential gene expression induced by PTx. Immature monocyte-derived dendritic cells (iMoDCs) were the only cells in which PTx induced significant differential expression of genes. Results were confirmed using different donors and further extended by showing specificity for PTx in comparison to Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and Bordetella pertussis lipo-oligosaccharide (LOS). Statistical analysis indicated 6 genes, namely IFNG, IL2, XCL1, CD69, CSF2 and CXCL10, as significantly upregulated by PTx which was also demonstrated at the protein level for genes encoding secreted proteins. IL-2 and IFN-γ gave the strongest response. The minimal PTx concentrations that induced production of IL-2 and IFN-γ in iMoDCs were 12.5 and 25IU/ml, respectively. High concentrations of LPS slightly induced IFN-γ but not IL-2, while LOS and detoxified pertussis toxin did not induce production of either cytokine. In conclusion, using microarray analysis we evaluated six human cell lines/types for their responsiveness to PTx and found 6 PTx-responsive genes in iMoDCs of which IL2 is the most promising candidate to be used as a biomarker for the detection of residual PTx.

Saint Lucia revisited

The eastern Caribbean island of Saint Lucia is now famous in parasitological history as the setting for a major programme of schistosomiasis control'. Perhaps less well-known are the island's effective control of many intestinal parasites, and elimination of malaria, such that the current patterns of mortality and other demographic indicators now resemble those of industrialized countries. More recently, the island has become the focus for another community-based health programme as the Caribbean region again comes to grips with Aedes aegypti and its recently imported relative, Aedes albopictus, important vectors of yellow fever and dengue viruses (see Box 1).

Implementation of integrated vector management for disease vector control in the Eastern Mediterranean: where are we and where are we going?

Integrated vector management (IVM) is an acknowledged strategy of choice for the prevention and control of vector-borne diseases. The paper describes and documents the progress countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) Eastern Mediterranean Region have made in endorsing and translating the strategy into action at the national level. These include increased political commitment; strengthened intersectoral coordination and partnership; strengthened capacity in entomology and vector control; and scaling up of vector control interventions through universal access. These efforts, however, are compromised by inappropriate institutional arrangements in some countries; weak national capacities to address management of pesticides; , development and spread of vector resistance to insecticides, including to pyrethroids; and the expansion of emerging and re-emerging vector-borne diseases. With WHO leadership and support from partners, countries continue to address these challenges head-on.