POS0306 IMPACT OF MULTIMORBIDITY ON DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUG THERAPY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM THE ESPOIR COHORT

Background:

Multimorbidity is frequent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and could interfere with the therapeutic response.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate multimorbidity in the French cohort of early arthritis (ESPOIR cohort) and its possible impact on the therapeutic response.

Methods:

We included patients fulfilling 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA. An adapted MultiMorbidity Index (aMMI) was developed [1]. Each patient was assigned scores of binary aMMI (0= no comorbidity, 1= at least 1 comorbidity) and counted and weighted aMMI. The primary endpoint was achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity after initiation of a first disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) according to the aMMI. Secondary endpoints were other disease activity scores and response criteria. We collected data from the visit preceding the first DMARD initiation (baseline visit) and the visit after at least 3 months of treatment (follow-up visit). The impact of aMMI on therapeutic maintenance at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years was evaluated.

Results:

Analyses involved 472 patients: 302 (64%) had at least 1 comorbidity. Overall, 45.3% and 44.7% with binary aMMI= 0 or 1, respectively (p= 0.9), achieved CDAI low disease activity (Table 1). Similar results were found with counted and weighted aMMI. Use of other disease activity scores or response criteria did not show a significant impact of multimorbidity on the therapeutic response. Therapeutic maintenance was significantly better with binary aMMI = 1 than binary aMMI = 0. Increased counted aMMI was associated with increased probability of still being on the first initiated DMARD at each time point (Table 2).

Table 1.

Impact of aMMIs on CDAI, DAS28 and SDAI low disease activity (LDA) achievement at follow-up visit (univariate analyses)

LDA achievementCDAIpDAS28pSDAIpYesNoYesNoYesNoBinary aMMI, n (%)077 (45.3)93 (54.7)0.9*85 (50.0)85 (50.0)0.2*80 (47.1)90 (52.9)0.9*1135 (44.7)167 (55.3)131 (43.4)171 (56.6)141 (46.7)161 (53.3)Counted aMMI, mean (SD)1.0 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)0.71.0 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)0.21.1 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)1.0Weighted aMMI, mean (SD)4.1 (5.2)4.0 (4.7)0.94.0 (5.2)4.1 (4.7)0.34.0 (5.0)4.0 (4.9)1.0

aMMI= adapted MultiMorbidity Index; CDAI= Clinical Disease Activity Index; SDAI= Simplified Disease Activity Index

* Proportion of patients achieving LDA between patients with binary aMMI= 0 and binary aMMI= 1. Because of no statistically significant results, no multivariate analysis was performed.

Table 2.

Probability of first DMARD maintenance at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years (multivariate analysis)

Time pointFirst DMARD maintained or stoppedBinary aMMI#Counted aMMI§011 year(n= 530)Maintenance (n= 300)22981.71 (0.93)OR [95% CI]*> 999 [286.2->999]221.3 [84.0-583.0]Withdrawal (n= 230)205250.12 (0.37)3 years(n= 493)Maintenance (n= 285)102751.66 (0.94)OR [95% CI]*153.9 [73.0-324.5]26.1 [15.1-45.3]Withdrawal (n= 208)175330.22 (0.64)5 years(n= 459)Maintenance (n= 116)91071.72 (1.05)OR [95% CI]*10.9 [5.1-23.3]2.2 [1.8-2.7]Withdrawal (n= 343)1631800.82 (1.0)10 years(n= 415)Maintenance (n= 40)2381.58 (0.84)OR [95% CI]*14.0 [3.3-59.1]1.6 [1.2-2.0]Withdrawal (n= 375)1582170.99 (1.12)

#data are number of patients

§ data are mean (standard error)

* data are odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of still being on the first initiated DMARD at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years between patients with binary aMMI = 1 and binary aMMI = 0 and according to counted aMMI, per additional point.

Conclusion:

In the ESPOIR cohort, therapeutic response to a first DMARD was not affected by multimorbidity but therapeutic maintenance was better in multimorbid patients.

References:

[1]Radner H, Yoshida K, Mjaavatten MD, et al. Development of a multimorbidity index: Impact on quality of life using a rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2015;45:167–73.

The variables included in multivariate analyses were sex, rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrunillated peptide antibody positivity, age, CDAI at baseline visit, number of treatments at baseline visit.

Acknowledgements:

We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) for expert monitoring and data management and all the investigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).

Disclosure of Interests:

Aurélie BELTAI: None declared, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Amandine Coffy: None declared, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Maxime Dougados Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Jean-Pierre DAURES: None declared, Charlotte Hua: None declared

OP0116 TEN-YEAR ANALYSIS OF VERY LOW-DOSE GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN EARLY RA (ESPOIR COHORT) SUPPORTS A TIME-DEPENDENT RISK OF SEVERE OUTCOMES

Background:

We previously failed to find any significant difference with regard to severe outcomes (death, severe infections, fractures, cardiovascular diseases [CVD]) between recent-onset RA patients taking or not low-dose GC treatment in a 7-year analysis of the ESPOIR cohort (1).

Objectives:

To explore the 10-year tolerability profile of GC use in patients with early RA.

Methods:

We analysed data from the early arthritis (less than 6 months disease duration) ESPOIR cohort. Patients were stratified in two groups, with or without GC treatment at least once during their follow-up (median 10 years IQR [9-10]). The primary outcome was a composite of death, CVD (including myocardial ischemia, cerebrovascular accident and heart failure), severe infection and fracture. In order to reduce the impact of treatment selection bias and potential confounding factors, the weighted Cox time-dependent analysis model was used with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score method.

Results:

Among the 608 RA patients (480 women, mean age of 47.5 ± 12.1 years), 397 patients (65%) received low-dose prednisone (median 1.9 mg/day [IQR 0.6-4.2], mainly during the first 6 months (70%). The mean duration of GC treatment was 44.6 months ± 40.1. Overall, 95 events were identified during follow-up: 10 deaths, 18 CVD, 32 fractures and 35 severe infections. Based on univariate analysis at 10 years, patients taking GC experienced significantly more events (n=71) than those without GC (n=24) (p=0.035), especially severe infections (n=30 with GC versus 5 without GC, p=0.009) (table 1), with a cumulative dose effect (p=0.007).On weighted Cox time-dependent analysis, using the IPTW propensity score method, the risk of events over time was significantly associated with GC treatment (p <0.001), age, history of hypertension and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The risk associated with GC treatment, estimated by the hazard ratio (HR), increased between the first follow-up visit (HR at 6 months = 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82) and 10 years (HR=6.83, 95% CI 2.29-20.35) (figure 1 and table 2).

Table 1.

Primary outcome and events at 10 years: univariate analysis

Total study population (n=608)Without GCWith CGP ValuePrimary outcome95 (15.6%)24 (11.4%)71 (17.9%)0.035Death10 (1.6%)1 (0.5%)9 (2.3%)0.103Cardiovascular diseases18 (3%)3 (1.4%)15 (3.8%)0.177Severe infections35 (5.8%)5 (2.4%)30 (7.6%)0.009Fractures32 (5.3%)15 (7.1%)17 (4.3%)0.137Table 2.

Time-dependent relationship between glucocorticoids treatment and risk of eventsestimated by hazard ratio

Time (Months)Hazard Ratio (95% CI)120.46 (0.23 - 0.90)240.62 (0.36 - 1.08)360.83 (0.52 - 1.33)481.12 (0.73 - 1.72)601.52 (0.96 - 2.40)722.05 (1.19 - 3.52)842.77 (1.44 - 5.34)963.74 (1.69 - 8.26)1085.05 (1.98 - 12.91)1206.83 (2.29 - 20.35)Figure 1.

Time-dependent relationship between glucocorticoids treatment and risk of eventsestimated by hazard ratio (HR)

Conclusion:

This 10-year analysis of the ESPOIR cohort supports a dose and time-dependent impact of very low-dose GC treatment in early RA, with a long-term high risk of severe outcomes.

Disclosure of Interests:

Camille Roubille Consultant of: Servier, Pfizer, Novartis, Amandine Coffy: None declared, Nathalie Rincheval: None declared, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, Jean-Pierre Daures: None declared, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB

[Comparison of birth weights of children born after slow frozen embryo replacement versus fresh embryo transfer]

OBJECTIVE

It is already known that children born after slow frozen embryo replacement have a significantly higher birth weight compared to children born after fresh embryo transfer. Similar data have been reported related to frozen embryo transfer using an open vitrification system. However, few data relative to birth weight using a complete embryo closed vitrification system has been reported. The purpose of this study was to know if frozen embryo in closed vitrification system is associated with a higher birth weight compared to fresh embryo replacement.

DESIGN

This was a monocentric retrospective cohort study, 371 children were issued from fresh embryo replacement and 127 from vitrified embryo transfer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All singletons born after fresh or vitrified embryo transfer between January 2011 and April 2015 were included. Births from the vitrified or fresh transfers of egg or sperm donation, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis were excluded. In addition, pregnancies with more than one gestational sac at the first ultrasound were excluded. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Mean birth weight was 205g higher in the frozen embryo compared with fresh embryos transfer groups (3368g vs. 3163g respectively, P<0.001). This difference remained after multivariate analysis adjusted on confounding factors such as gestational age, maternal age, maternal body mass index (BMI), tobacco exposure, number of embryo transferred and birth order (P<0.001)..

CONCLUSIONS

Embryo frozen in closed vitrification system is associated with a higher birth weight compared to fresh embryo replacement. Our findings are consistent with the previous studies related to slow freezing and open vitrification systems data. The effects of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), ex vivo culture conditions and cryopreservation systems on birth weight of children born should be further explored.

[What do chemotherapy specialists expect of lung cancer?]

OBJECTIVE

In an attempt to understand physicians' expectations of chemotherapy, a group of lung cancer specialists was involved in an online survey investigating their opinions by a self-questionnaire. The questionnaire described five different chemotherapy prescription situations for lung cancer patients (stages IIIB or IV).

METHOD

A total of 30 expert specialists were invited; 22 responded (73%). For each of the clinical situations, the expert was asked for his opinion on 3 items: cure, prolongation of survival and alleviation of symptoms. Each item was judged on a Likert scale with categories between -2 "not at all probable" and +2 "quite likely".

RESULTS

For "cure", the percentage of -2 responses differed significantly according to the clinical situation (Fisher test: P<0.00001). The trend test showed a relationship between the percentage of -2 responses and the suspected order of the clinical situations (Cochran-Armitage trend test: P<0.0001). For symptom alleviation, the percentage of responses +2 and +1 differed significantly according to the clinical situation (Fisher test: P=0.00013, trend test: P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

What specialist physicians expect of chemotherapy in terms of curability and symptom relief differs according to the actual statistical prognosis of each situation as presented in the literature. The worst prognostic situation leads to the strongest expectation in terms of symptom relief and, conversely, the lowest for curability.