Evidence Hub

Effects of smoking on clinical treatment outcomes amongst patients with chronic inflammatory diseases initiating biologics: secondary analyses of the prospective BELIEVE cohort study

M. Larsen, S. H. Overgaard, S. R. Petersen, K. M. Møllegaard, H. Munk, A. B. Nexøe, H. Glerup, T. Guldmann et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 2024

233 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

The prevalence and disease burden of chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) are predicted to rise. Patients are commonly treated with biological agents, but the individual treatment responses vary, warranting further research into optimizing treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare the clinical treatment responses in patients with CIDs initiating biologic therapy based on smoking status, a notorious risk factor in CIDs. In this multicentre cohort study including 233 patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis initiating biologic therapy, we compared treatment response rates after 14 to 16 weeks and secondary outcomes between smokers and non‐smokers. We evaluated the contrast between groups using logistic regression models: (i) a “crude” model, only adjusted for the CID type, and (ii) an adjusted model (including sex and age). Among the 205 patients eligible for this study, 53 (26%) were smokers. The treatment response rate among smokers (n = 23 [43%]) was lower compared to the non‐smoking CID population (n = 92 [61%]), corresponding to a “crude” OR of 0.51 (95% CI: [0.26;1.01]) while adjusting for sex and age resulted in consistent findings: 0.51 [0.26;1.02]. The contrast was apparently most prominent among the 38 RA patients, with significantly lower treatment response rates for smokers in both the “crude” and adjusted models (adjusted OR 0.13, [0.02;0.81]). Despite…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 233 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free