Objectives To describe selected baseline characteristics, continuation with baricitinib and disease activity over time in patients initiating treatment with baricitinib in a UK real-world rheumatology setting. Methods Baseline and follow-up data were analysed from baricitinib-treated patients newly recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) baricitinib cohort between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2020. The primary objective was to evaluate continuation of baricitinib treatment in patients with at least one follow-up. Analyses were performed using the full baricitinib cohort, overall and by patient subgroup: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD-naïve versus -experienced, baricitinib 4 vs 2 mg, age ≥65 versus <65 years, monotherapy versus combination therapy and male versus female. Results At baseline, the study cohort (N = 561) was 76.5% female, mean age 60.0 years, had longstanding (mean 13.1 years) and severe RA, and 54.0% had previously received a bDMARD/tsDMARD. Of 265 and 110 patients completing the 6- and 12-month follow-ups with available data, 77.7 and 69.1% remained on baricitinib at each time, respectively. In all Kaplan–Meier analyses, >60% of patients remained on baricitinib at 540 days. Continuation of baricitinib therapy differed between some subgroup pairs (bDMARD/tsDMARD naïve/experienced, baricitinib 2 mg/4 mg). Disease activity was lower at both follow-ups than at baseline, overall and in all subgroups. Conclusion In the early years of real-world baricitinib use in the UK, a high proportion of patients continued with treatment at both 6 and 12 months, at which times disease activity was lower than at baseline.

Background/Aims  Baricitinib is a once-daily orally administered Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry-RA (BSRBR-RA) captures real-world data on biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including baricitinib, in the UK. Patients are followed up 6-monthly for the first 3 years and annually thereafter. Objectives of this study were to describe baseline characteristics and status (continuation with baricitinib and disease activity) at first follow-up after initiating baricitinib. Analysis was performed independently of the register study team at BSRBR-RA. Methods  The study included patients initiating baricitinib and registered in the BSRBR-RA baricitinib cohort between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2019. Continuation with baricitinib and disease activity score for 28-joint count with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) were assessed in those completing first follow-up at 6 months in the overall population and in the following subgroups: without prior b/tsDMARD experience; with prior b/tsDMARD experience; and receiving baricitinib monotherapy. Continuation was summarised as N (%) remaining on baricitinib at first follow-up (interruptions ≤28 days were permitted). Results  During the study period, 409 patients enrolled in the baricitinib cohort. Most were female (76%), the mean disease duration was 13 years (standard deviation [SD] 10) and most had received a prior biologic (63%). Mean and median DAS28-ESR were 5.6 (SD 1.2) and 5.7 (interquartile range 5.1-6.4), respectively. Thirty-nine percent were on baricitinib monotherapy. Overall, 16% were on baricitinib 2mg, 84% on 4mg and 30% were receiving concomitant corticosteroids. First follow-up data were available for 163 patients, of whom 122 (75%) remained on baricitinib. DAS28-ESR was lower at first follow-up than at baseline both overall and in all subgroups (Table 1). Conclusion  In an RA study population with severe longstanding disease, in which almost two thirds had received biologics, baricitinib showed good effectiveness and tolerability (continuation) in patients completing first follow-up. Although sample sizes were small, subgroup results suggested good baricitinib effectiveness in all subgroups studied. Further analyses are needed to assess longitudinal outcomes in larger sample sizes at follow-ups beyond 6 months. Disclosure  C.J. Edwards: Honoraria; Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Fresenius, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Fresenius, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. Grants/research support; Abbvie, Biogen. J. Mount: Other; Employee at Eli Lilly and Company. A. Meeks: Other; Contractor at Eli Lilly and Company. L. Zaremba-Pechmann: Other; Contractor at Eli Lilly and Company. A. Mian: Other; Employee at Eli Lilly and Company. E. Larsson: Other; Employee at Eli Lilly and Company. E. Dennision: Other; Lilly, Pfizer and UCB.

No abstract

Introduction Basal insulin’s position in the type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment paradigm has undergone significant revisions since the advent of diabetes medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is), which offer cardiorenal protection for people with T2D (PwT2D). This study aimed to characterize the demographic, clinical, and diabetes medication utilization patterns of PwT2D initiating basal insulin between 2014 and 2020 over the time period when these revisions were occurring. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using the IBM ® MarketScan ® databases and included adults with T2D who initiated basal insulin therapy (basal insulin initiators) in 2015, 2017, or 2019. Patient characteristics, medication utilization patterns, and time to add an additional diabetes drug class were compared across years. Characteristics of users of basal insulin-GLP-1RA combination therapy (GLP-1RA-basal insulin dual users) were also compared across years. Results Between 2015 and 2019, initiation of basal insulin therapy remained steady, with 1.6–1.9% of PwT2D starting basal insulin in each year. GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i use increased pre- and post-basal insulin initiation (pre-basal: GLP-1RA, from 14.8% to 25.2%, p < 0.0001; SGLT-2i, from 11.4% to 20.5%, p < 0.0001; post-basal: GLP-1RA, from 16.7% to 30.5%, p < 0.0001; SGLT-2i, from 13.4% to 23.3%, p < 0.0001]). The proportion of PwT2D with underlying cardiovascular and renal diseases did not increase during this period. Among basal insulin initiators without prior GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i, or bolus insulin use, time to adding on these agents decreased, with 14.0–15.6% starting bolus insulin within the first year. Among GLP-1RA-basal insulin dual initiators, the proportion of those with underlying cardiovascular disease was not higher among GLP-1RA first users. Conclusions In this real-world study, insulin remained key in the T2D treatment paradigm. A growing proportion of PwT2D utilized GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is before and after initiation of basal insulin therapy. At the same time, there was no increase in the proportion of those initiating basal insulin who had cardiorenal comorbidity profiles for which treatment guidelines have recommended the use of GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2is. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-023-01414-4.

The prevalence of active atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults in the UK according to disease severity shows variability. This study evaluated disease prevalence and treatment patterns among the adult UK population with AD. Data were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database. Adults with active AD were identified by an AD‐related prescription or general practitioner visit within the same calendar year. Prevalence was defined as the number of patients with active AD on 1 January of each year as a percentage of the number of adults in the CPRD population on that date. Moderate‐to‐severe disease was classified as either referral to a specialist or prescription(s) for topical calcineurin inhibitors, phototherapy, or systemic treatment. Patient characteristics and treatment and referral patterns were analysed for patients with active AD in 2019. The overall prevalence of AD was stable at 2.4% per year during the period 2015–2019. In 2019, mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 52.6 ± 21.0 years, 58.2% of patients were female and mean disease duration was 9.4 ± 5.9 years. The most prescribed treatment was topical corticosteroids, in 78.5% of patients. 36.7% of patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD were prescribed systemic agents and 59.8% (vs. 32.3% of patients with mild AD) were referred to any secondary care or specialist treatment. The prevalence of active AD in the adult UK population was stable over the 5‐year period (2015–2019) and was comparable to estimates from similar studies based on UK primary healthcare records.