AB1349 The effect of biological therapy on work participation in ankylosing spondylitis patients: A systematic review
1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Annals of the rheumatic diseases
(Impact Factor: 10.38).
09/2012; 71(12). DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201914
To review systematically the effect of biological treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) on three work outcomes: work status, absence from paid work and at-work productivity.
A systematic literature search was performed (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) to identify relevant articles. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines for cohorts and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data were extracted using a self-composed data extraction form. Owing to extensive interstudy heterogeneity, narrative summaries were used to present the data.
Nine studies were included (six uncontrolled cohorts, one population-controlled cohort and two RCTs) that reported on 39 comparisons. Overall, 961 patients were treated with three different tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab). For presenteeism and absence from work, most comparisons showed improvement in favour of biological agents, but not all comparisons were statistically significant and they usually concerned before-after analyses. For work status, changes were less often positive, but studies dealt with patients with longstanding AS, lacked power and had a relatively short follow-up.
Although trends towards beneficial effects of biological agents in longstanding AS were seen on all work outcomes, the methodological limitations in the studies included hampers clear conclusions. Since the majority of studies were (extensions of) controlled trials, the generalisability of the effect of biological agents on work participation in real life should be further studied in larger (population-controlled) studies. The effect of biological agents in patients with early disease has not yet been examined.
Available from: Xavier Barber
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To date, anti-tumor necrosis factor alfa (anti-TNF-α) therapy is the only alternative to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Etanercept is a soluble TNF receptor, with a mode of action and pharmacokinetics different to those of antibodies and distinctive efficacy and safety. Etanercept has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, with or without radiographic sacroiliitis, and other manifestations of the disease, including peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and psoriasis. Etanercept is not efficacious in inflammatory bowel disease, and its efficacy in the treatment of uveitis appears to be lower than that of other anti-TNF drugs. Studies of etanercept confirmed regression of bone edema on magnetic resonance imaging of the spine and sacroiliac joint, but failed to reduce radiographic progression, as do the other anti-TNF drugs. It seems that a proportion of patients remain in disease remission when the etanercept dose is reduced or administration intervals are extended. Etanercept is generally well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. The most common adverse effect of etanercept treatment is injection site reactions, which are generally self-limiting. Reactivation of tuberculosis, reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection, congestive heart failure, demyelinating neurologic disorders, hematologic disorders like aplastic anemia and pancytopenia, vasculitis, immunogenicity, and exacerbation or induction of psoriasis are class effects of all the anti-TNF drugs, and have been seen in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. However, etanercept is less likely to induce reactivation of tuberculosis than the other anti-TNF drugs and it has been suggested that etanercept might be less immunogenic, especially in ankylosing spondylitis. Acute uveitis, Crohn's disease, and sarcoidosis are other adverse events that have been rarely associated with etanercept therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
Patient Preference and Adherence 09/2013; 7:961-972. DOI:10.2147/PPA.S33109 · 1.68 Impact Factor
Available from: Robert Landewé
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
To determine the risk of sick leave and work disability in relation to rheumatic diseases and cardiovascular comorbidities among working individuals. Methods
Employees (n = 12,140) from 45 companies in The Netherlands were prospectively followed up from 1998-2008. Questionnaires were used to assess self-reported diseases and employment status. Company records provided individual sick leave data for the first 2.5 years of followup. For a selected sample of the cohort (50%), verification of self-reported diseases was sought through hospital record linkage. Poisson regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to determine the impact of both self-reported and verified diseases on sick leave and work disability, respectively. ResultsThe number of days and frequency of sick leave were increased in working individuals with self-reported rheumatic and cardiovascular disease (P < 0.001), but self-reported cardiovascular comorbidity did not result in more sick leave in those who also self-reported rheumatic disease. Work disability was also increased for both self-reported rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease (P < 0.001), but again, no additive effects were found. In the sample verified by clinical review, the frequency or number of days of sick leave was significantly higher in employees with cardiovascular disease (P < 0.001), inflammatory rheumatic disease (P < 0.05), and osteoarthritis (P < 0.05) compared to employees without these diseases. Work disability in the verified sample occurred especially in patients with osteoarthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 12.36 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.59-13.66]), fibromyalgia (HR 14.24 [95% CI 2.02-16.54]), and cardiovascular disease (HR 4.88 [95% CI 1.70-14.01]). Conclusion
Rheumatic and cardiovascular diseases increased the risk of sick leave and work disability in a working population, but there was no indication that these effects convey an additive risk.
08/2013; 66(1). DOI:10.1002/acr.22095
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effects of golimumab therapy on achieving inactive disease or major improvement, as assessed by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and productivity through 2 years in patients with AS.
In the phase III GO-RAISE trial, 356 patients were randomized to placebo with crossover to golimumab 50 mg at Week 24 (n = 78), golimumab 50 mg (n = 138), or golimumab 100 mg (n = 140) at baseline and every 4 weeks. The proportions of patients with ASDAS major improvement (improvement ≥ 2.0) or inactive disease (score < 1.3) were determined. HRQOL was assessed using the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 physical/mental component summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) scores (normal score ≥ 50). The effect of disease on productivity was assessed by visual analog scale (0-10). Regression analyses on the association of disease activity and HRQOL were performed. The final assessment was at Week 104.
Significantly greater proportions of golimumab-treated patients achieved ASDAS major improvement or inactive disease at weeks 14 and 24 versus placebo. Through Week 104, patients who achieved ASDAS inactive disease or major improvement had significantly greater improvements in SF-36 PCS and MCS scores and productivity than did patients not meeting these targets. Among all patients, achieving ASDAS inactive disease at weeks 52 and 104 was associated with normalized SF-36 PCS/MCS scores and significant improvements in work productivity.
Greater proportions of golimumab-treated patients achieved ASDAS major improvement or inactive disease and improved HRQOL versus placebo. Achieving an inactive disease state by ASDAS criteria (< 1.3) was associated with normalized HRQOL through 2 years.
The Journal of Rheumatology 04/2014; 41(6). DOI:10.3899/jrheum.131003 · 3.19 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.