Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined. Results In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values. Conclusion Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone. Clinical trial registration number SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Download Full-text

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-019-2037-1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Janet Pope ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Alan Friedman ◽

Heidi S. Camp ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Activity ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Normative Values ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Mixed Effect ◽

Meaningful Improvement ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs. Methods Patients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests. Results Data from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients. Conclusions Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON)

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209821 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 76 (4) ◽

pp. 694-700 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

Josef S Smolen ◽

Joel M Kremer ◽

Carol L Gaich ◽

Amy M DeLozier ◽

Douglas E Schlichting ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Analysis Of Covariance ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Continuous Variables ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Phase Iii Study

ObjectivesTo assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).MethodsIn this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables.Results527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01).ConclusionsBaricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib.Trial registration numberNCT01721044; Results.

Download Full-text

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Upadacitinib Versus Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 12-Week Results of a Phase 3 Trial

10.21203/rs.3.rs-734225/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Martin Bergman ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Naomi Martin ◽

Jessica L Suboticki ◽

Debbie Goldschmidt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Disease Modifying

Abstract Background In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized clinical trial evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA who have inadequate response or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARD-IR).Methods: Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg once daily) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient’s assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), duration and severity of morning stiffness, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to week 12 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests.Results: Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. Thirty-two percent received >1 bDMARD and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA treatment showed significantly greater improvements than ABA treatment in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, WPAI activity impairment domain, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and physical component summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05). Significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05). The proportions of patients achieving MCID in the remaining PROs were similar between groups.Conclusions: In this study, treatment with UPA or ABA resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs at week 12 in patients with active RA. UPA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health, and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI compared with ABA.Trial registration: NCT03086343, March 22, 2017

Download Full-text

The impact of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of Phase 3 studies

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-021-02677-7 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 24 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Clifton O. Bingham ◽

David Walker ◽

Peter Nash ◽

Susan J. Lee ◽

Lei Ye ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Short Form ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Link Type ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background The effects of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from 3 trials in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were investigated. Methods Methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients received filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus MTX (FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX monotherapy through 52 weeks (NCT02886728). Patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR) received FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX, adalimumab 40 mg +MTX (ADA+MTX), or placebo (PBO)+MTX (rerandomized to FIL200+MTX or FIL100+MTX at week 24) through 52 weeks (NCT02889796). Patients with IR to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) received FIL200 or FIL100 or PBO with background stable conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for up to 24 weeks (NCT02873936). PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA). Data are reported as least-squares mean changes from baseline with standard error to the timepoint representing each study’s primary endpoint. All statistical comparisons are of filgotinib groups vs their respective control groups. Results At week 24, among MTX-naïve patients, change from baseline (standard deviation) in HAQ-DI was − 1.00 (0.03; P < 0.001) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.94 (0.04; P < 0.01) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.91 (0.04; P < 0.05) with FIL200 alone compared with − 0.81 (0.03) with MTX alone. At week 12, among MTX-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.69 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs PBO+MTX, P < 0.05 vs ADA) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.57 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs placebo) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.60 (0.04) with ADA vs − 0.40 (0.04) with PBO+MTX. At week 12, among bDMARD-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.50 (0.06; P < 0.001) with FIL200+csDMARD and − 0.46 (0.05; P < 0.001) with FIL100+csDMARD vs − 0.19 (0.06) with placebo+csDMARD. Changes in SF-36 PCS and MCS, FACIT-Fatigue, WPAI, and PtGA tended to favor filgotinib over PBO, MTX, and ADA. Greater proportions of patients experienced clinically meaningful differences with either dosage of FIL in combination with csDMARDs (including MTX) and with FIL200 monotherapy vs comparators. Conclusions Filgotinib provided improvements in PROs across patient populations. These findings suggest filgotinib can be an effective treatment option for patients with insufficient response to MTX or bDMARDs and patients who are MTX-naïve. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, FINCH 1, NCT02889796, first posted September 7, 2016; FINCH 2, NCT02873936, first posted August 22, 2016, retrospectively registered; FINCH 3, NCT02886728, first posted September 1, 2016, retrospectively registered.

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001040 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. e001040 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Eduardo Mysler ◽

Robert J Moots ◽

Gene V Wallenstein ◽

Ryan DeMasi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Link Type ◽

Combination Treatments ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Phase Iiib

ObjectiveTo provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores.ResultsSubstantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points.ConclusionTreatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning.Trial registration numberNCT02187055.

Download Full-text

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden—a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000806 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e000806 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Kurt de Vlam ◽

Jose A Covarrubias-Cobos ◽

Philip J Mease ◽

Dafna D Gladman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Janus Kinase ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Placebo Patient ◽

Pain Patient ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]).MethodsPatients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments.ResultsAt month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab.ConclusioncsDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3.

Download Full-text

Patient-Reported Outcomes from a 1-Year, Real-World, Head-to-Head Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA and Topiramate for Headache Prevention in Adults With Chronic Migraine

Journal of Primary Care & Community Health ◽

10.1177/2150132720959936 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

pp. 215013272095993 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrew M. Blumenfeld ◽

Atul T. Patel ◽

Ira M. Turner ◽

Kathleen B. Mullin ◽

Aubrey Manack Adams ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Migraine ◽

Real World ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Work Productivity ◽

Preventive Treatment ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Treatment Benefit ◽

Study Results ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Headache Impact

Introduction/Objective: Chronic migraine (CM) is associated with impaired health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic burden, but many people with CM are underdiagnosed and do not receive appropriate preventive treatment. OnabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate have demonstrated efficacy (treatment benefit under ideal conditions) for the prevention of headaches in people with CM in clinical trials, but real-world studies suggest markedly different clinical effectiveness (treatment benefit based on a blend of efficacy and tolerability). This study sought to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate immediate release for people with CM. Methods: FORWARD was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase 4 study comparing onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks with topiramate 50 to 100 mg/day for ≤36 weeks in people with CM. PROs measured included the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire Quick Depression Assessment (PHQ-9), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire (FIMQ). Results: A total of 282 patients were randomized and treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 140) or topiramate (n = 142). From baseline to week 30, mean HIT-6 test scores improved significantly in patients taking onabotulinumtoxinA compared with topiramate ( P < .001). Improvements in depression over time were observed via larger changes in PHQ-9 scores with onabotulinumtoxinA than topiramate ( P < .001). Work productivity assessed via WPAI:SHP scores revealed significant improvements with onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in Work Productivity Loss ( P = .024) and Activity Impairment ( P < .001) domains. Results from the FIMQ also revealed a larger reduction from baseline with onabotulinumtoxinA vs topiramate ( P < .0001). Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment had more favorable real-world effectiveness than topiramate on depression, headache impact, functioning and daily living, activity, and work productivity. The overall study results suggest that the beneficial effects on a range of PROs are the result of improved effectiveness when onabotulinumtoxinA is used as preventive treatment for CM. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02191579; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02191579

Download Full-text

P365 Correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported disease activity in Ulcerative Colitis (UC): Findings from the ICONIC study

Journal of Crohn s and Colitis ◽

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab076.489 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S382-S383

Author(s):

S Ghosh ◽

F Casellas ◽

K Kligys PhD ◽

Y Sanchez Gonzalez ◽

L Peyrin-Biroulet

Keyword(s):

Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Bowel Disease ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Work Productivity ◽

Total Activity ◽

Total Work ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background This analysis aimed to examine the correlation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with patient-reported disease activity, and to identify individual questions of the Patient Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (P-SCCAI) associated with Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire domains in patients from the ICONIC study.1 Methods ICONIC enrolled unselected outpatients (N=1804) with recent-onset UC.1 Correlations between PRO measures (Rating Form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient Concerns [RFIPC], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], and Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [SIBDQ]) at baseline (visit [V]1) and 2 years (V5) were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. WPAI domains and PHQ-9 were evaluated at V1 and V5 using a multivariable logistic regression model with individual P-SCCAI questions. Results Significantly higher work productivity impairment scores, lower reported quality of life (QoL), and higher worries/concerns at V1 and V5 were observed in patients with active disease (P-SCCAI ≥5) vs inactive disease (P-SCCAI <5) (Figures 1 and 2). A strong correlation (0.70–0.89) was found between the SIBDQ and the P-SCCAI and PHQ-9 (Table 1). WPAI presenteeism, total activity impairment and total work productivity impairment were moderately correlated (0.40–0.69) with P-SCCAI and PHQ-9 (Table 1). At V1, a significant positive association of disease severity and nocturnal bowel urgency was observed with WPAI presenteeism, absenteeism, and total activity impairment. At V1 and V5, lower patient-assessed PHQ-9 scores were significantly associated with female gender, no bowel urgency, and no joint pain. Conclusion These observational data in patients with UC suggest strong correlations between some PRO measures and patient-reported disease activity. Nocturnal bowel urgency was a key driver of total work productivity impairment, suggesting it is an important PRO to monitor when assessing overall patient QoL. Reference

Download Full-text

Canadian Adalimumab Post-Marketing Observational Epidemiological Study Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): 12-Month Results of Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab and nbDMARDs

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.200609 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. jrheum.200609

Author(s):

Majed Mustafa Khraishi ◽

Valencia P. Remple ◽

Samuel Silverberg ◽

Jacqueline C. Stewart ◽

Brandusa Florica ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Routine Care ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Lower Baseline ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Post Marketing ◽

A Current ◽

Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug

Objective COMPLETE-PsA was an observational study of biologic-naïve Canadian adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab or a non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARDs) regimen, after inadequate response/intolerance to a current nbDMARD treatment regimen. The aim of this analysis was to assess 12-month effectiveness of adalimumab versus nbDMARDs. Methods Patients enrolled between March 2012 and November 2017 were included. The following clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes were collected/calculated per routine care: DAPSA28, DAS28, ESR, CRP, MDGA, PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-12, enthesitis, dactylitis, BSA, and time to achieving ACR50, ACR70 and modified MDA (mMDA). Results Two hundred seventy-seven adalimumab-treated and 148 nbDMARD-treated patients were included. At baseline, adalimumab-treated patients were less likely to be employed; had longer morning stiffness; higher DAPSA28, DAS28, MDGA, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI; and lower prevalence of dactylitis (all p<0.05). Adalimumab-treated patients showed lower baseline-adjusted DAPSA28 (16.5 vs. 26.6), DAS28 (2.8 vs. 3.9), MDGA (25.3 vs. 37.1), and ESR (10.2 vs. 15.4 mm/hr) after 3 months compared to nbDMARD-treated patients, with observed improvements maintained to month 12. Time to achievement of ACR50, ACR70, and mMDA was significantly (p<0.01) shorter among adalimumab-treated patients, with the likelihood of having dactylitis [OR: 0.4 (0.2–0.6)] and BSA<3% [2.7 (1.5–5.0)] significantly lower and higher, respectively. Switching to another biologic was less likely in adalimumab-treated vs. nbDMARD -treated patients (HR [95% CI]: 0.3 [0.2-0.5]). Conclusion In a real-world Canadian PsA population, adalimumab was more effective than nbDMARDs at reducing disease activity and the severity of skin involvement and demonstrated higher retention.

Download Full-text

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-019-2059-8 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Michael Schiff ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Alan Friedman ◽

Sebastian Meerwein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Normative Values ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Disease Modifying

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). Methods PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated. Results In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients. Conclusions In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo. Trial registration The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Download Full-text