James Galloway

Dr. James Galloway


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2010 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WDW G Dixon
W G Dixon
KHK L Hyrich
K L Hyrich
KWK D Watson
K D Watson
MLM Lunt
M Lunt
JGJames Galloway
James Galloway
DSD P M Symmons
D P M Symmons
Background The risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is thought to be increased following anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy, with a proposed differential risk between the anti-TNF drugs etanercept (ETA), infliximab (INF) and adalimumab (ADA). Objective To compare directly the risk between drugs, to explore time to event, site of infection and the role of ethnicity. Methods Data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR), a national prospective observational study, were used to compare TB rates in 10 712 anti-TNF treated patients (3913 ETA, 3295 INF, 3504 ADA) and 3232 patients with active RA treated with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Results To April 2008, 40 cases of TB were reported, all in the anti-TNF cohort. The rate of TB was higher for the monoclonal antibodies ADA (144 events/100 000 person-years) and INF (136/100 000 person-years) than for ETA (39/100 000 person-years). After adjustment, the incidence rate ratio compared with ETA-treated patients was 3.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 9.5) for INF and 4.2 (1.4 to 12.4) for ADA. The median time to event was lowest for INF (5.5 months) compared with ETA (13.4 months) and ADA (18.5 months). 13/40 cases occurred after stopping treatment. 25/40 (62%) cases were extrapulmonary, of which 11 were disseminated. Patients of non-white ethnicity had a sixfold increased risk of TB compared with white patients treated with anti-TNF therapy. Conclusion The rate of TB in patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy was three- to fourfold higher in patients receiving INF and ADA than in those receiving ETA.

31 July 2010 in Rheumatology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JGJames Galloway
James Galloway
KHKimme L. Hyrich
Kimme L. Hyrich
LMLouise K. Mercer
Louise K. Mercer
WDWilliam G. Dixon
William G. Dixon
BFB. Fu
B. Fu
OROn Behalf Of The British Society For Rheumatology Biologics Register
On Behalf Of The British Society For Rheumatology Biologics Register
Objectives. To evaluate the risk of serious infections (SIs) in patients with RA treated with anti-TNF therapy with emphasis on the risk across different ages. Methods. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational study, we compared the risk of SI between 11 798 anti-TNF-treated patients and 3598 non-biologic DMARD (nbDMARD)-treated patients. Results. A total of 1808 patients had at least one SI (anti-TNF: 1512; nbDMARD: 296). Incidence rates were: anti-TNF 42/1000 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 40, 44) and nbDMARD 32/1000 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI 28, 36). The adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) for SI in the anti-TNF cohort was 1.2 (95% CI 1.1, 1.5). The risk did not differ significantly between the three agents adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. The risk was highest during the first 6 months of therapy [adjHR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3, 2.6)]. Although increasing age was an independent risk factor for SI in both cohorts, there was no difference in relative risk of infection in patients on anti-TNF therapy in the older population. There was no difference in hospital stay for SI between cohorts. Mortality within 30 days of SI was 50% lower in the anti-TNF cohort [odds ratio 0.5 (95% CI 0.3, 0.8)]. Conclusions. These data add to currently available evidence suggesting that anti-TNF therapy is associated with a small but significant overall risk of SI. This must be balanced against the risks associated with poor disease control or alternative treatments.

14 April 2019 in Rheumatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KBKatie Bechman
Katie Bechman
SSSujith Subesinghe
Sujith Subesinghe
SNSam Norton
Sam Norton
FAFabiola Atzeni
Fabiola Atzeni
MGMassimo Galli
Massimo Galli
JGJames Galloway
James Galloway
Objectives: To evaluate the risk of serious infection (SI) and herpes zoster (HZ) in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving JAK inhibitors. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of phase II and III randomized controlled trials of tofacitinib (5 mg bid), baricitinib (4 mg od) and upadacitinib (15 mg od). Patient-exposure years were calculated. A per-protocol analysis was applied, incorporating follow-up time from patients randomized to placebo who cross into the treatment arm. Pooled incidence rates per 100 person-years of SI and HZ were calculated. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of drug vs placebo were compared using a meta-synthesis approach. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis; 11 tofacitinib (5888 patients), six baricitinib (3520 patients) and four upadacitinib studies (1736 patients). For SI, the incidence rates were 1.97 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.68), 3.16 (95% CI: 2.07, 4.63) and 3.02 (95% CI: 0.98, 7.04), respectively. The IRRs comparing treatment arm to placebo were statistically non-significant: 1.22 (95% CI: 0.60, 2.45), 0.80 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.38) and 1.14 (95% CI: 0.24, 5.43), respectively. For HZ, the incidence rates were 2.51 (95% CI: 1.87, 3.30), 3.16 (95% CI: 2.07, 4.63) and 2.41 (95% CI: 0.66, 6.18), respectively. The IRR of HZ comparing baricitinib with placebo was 2.86 (95% CI: 1.26, 6.50). Non-significant IRRs were seen with tofacitinib and upadacitinib: 1.38 (95% CI: 0.66, 2.88) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.22), respectively. Indicator opportunistic infections excluding HZ were too rare to provide meaningful incidence rates. Conclusion: The absolute SI rates were low. However across the JAK inhibitors, the incidence of HZ is higher than expected for the population (3.23 per 100 patient-years). While the risk was numerically greatest with baricitinib, indirect comparisons between the drugs did not demonstrate any significant difference in risk. Systematic review registration number: Prospero 2017 CRD4201707879.

11 July 2016 in Lupus
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
NAN Ambrose
N Ambrose
TMT A Morgan
T A Morgan
JGJames Galloway
James Galloway
YIY Ionnoau
Y Ionnoau
MBM W Beresford
M W Beresford
DID A Isenberg
D A Isenberg
Significant differences have been reported in disease phenotype and severity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presenting in different age groups. Most indicate a more severe phenotype in juvenile-onset SLE (JSLE). There have been limited studies in older patients and no large studies looking at SLE across all age groups. We assessed the effect of age of onset of SLE on the clinical phenotype by analysing data from two large UK cohorts (the UK JSLE Cohort and the UCLH SLE cohort). A total of 924 individuals were compared (413 JSLE, 511 adult-onset SLE). A female preponderance was present, but less pronounced at either end of the age spectrum. Arthritis was more common with advancing age (93% vs 72%, p < 0.001), whereas renal disease (44% vs 33%, p = 0.001), alopecia (47% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and aphthous ulcerations (39% vs 26%, p = 0.001) were more common in the young. Neuropsychiatric lupus was less common in mature-onset SLE (p < 0.01). JSLE was associated more commonly with thrombocytopenia (21% vs 15%, p = 0.01), haemolytic anaemia (20% vs 3%, p < 0.001), high anti-dsDNA (71% vs 63%, p = 0.009), Sm (22% vs 16%, p = 0.02) and RNP (36% vs 29%, p < 0.04) auto-antibodies. Leucopenia increased with advancing age (p < 0.001). Mortality has been declining over recent decades. However, death rates were substantially higher than the general population. The standardized mortality ratio was 18.3 in JSLE and 3.1 in adult-onset SLE. These data from the largest-ever direct comparison of JSLE with adult-onset SLE suggest an aggressive phenotype of disease with a worse outcome in patients with JSLE and emphasizes the importance of careful follow-up in this population.

3 November 2022 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GFGeorge E Fragoulis
George E Fragoulis
Elena NikiphorouElena Nikiphorou
Elena Nikiphorou
MDMrinalini Dey
Mrinalini Dey
SZSizheng Steven Zhao
Sizheng Steven Zhao
DCDelphine Sophie Courvoisier
Delphine Sophie Courvoisier
KHKimme L Hyrich
Kimme L Hyrich
Objectives To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member. Results Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii seems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15–30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2–4 weeks. Conclusions These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.

1 August 2020 in Journal of Infection
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JGJames Galloway
James Galloway
SNSam Norton
Sam Norton
RBRichard D Barker
Richard D Barker
ABAndrew Brookes
Andrew Brookes
ICIvana Carey
Ivana Carey
FCFleur Cantle
Fleur Cantle