scholarly journals P128 A subgroup analysis of the efficacy of filgotinib for patients with moderately active RA following an inadequate response to methotrexate

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya H Buch ◽  
David Walker ◽  
Patrick D W Kiely ◽  
Christopher J Edwards ◽  
Jane Barry ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Aims  Filgotinib is an oral, preferential janus kinase 1 inhibitor. FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) was a phase III, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study evaluating filgotinib efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX; MTX-IR). Methods  MTX-IR patients with moderately or severely active RA were randomised (3:3:2:3) to filgotinib 200 mg daily, filgotinib 100 mg daily, adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks, or placebo on a background of stable MTX for up to 52 weeks. An exploratory subgroup analysis of FINCH 1 was conducted in patients with moderately active RA based on Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP])>3.2-≤5.1 at baseline. Proportion of patients achieving 20%/50%/70% improvement from baseline in American College of Rheumatology core criteria (ACR20/50/70), DAS28(CRP)≤3.2, DAS28(CRP)<2.6, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), patient-reported pain, and modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score (mTSS) were assessed at week (W)12 and W24. All analyses were exploratory without multiplicity adjustment; nominal P-values are reported. Results  Of 1,755 treated patients, 24% had moderate disease at baseline with similar proportions (21.9%-26.9%) across treatment groups. In each treatment arm, baseline characteristics were well balanced for the moderate disease activity subpopulation. The majority (77%) were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of RA was 7.8 (7.7) years; mean (SD) baseline DAS28(CRP) was 4.6 (0.42). At W12 and W24, proportions achieving ACR20/50/70, DAS28(CRP)<2.6, and DAS28(CRP)≤3.2 were significantly higher for both filgotinib doses relative to placebo (Table). Improvement in HAQ-DI was significantly greater vs placebo at W12 but not W24 for both filgotinib doses (Table 1). For both doses of filgotinib vs placebo, SF-36 PCS and pain were significantly improved and there was numerically less radiographic progression as assessed by mTSS at W12 and W24 (Table). Composite disease activity, HAQ-DI, and mTSS scores with both filgotinib doses were comparable to adalimumab. P128 Table 1:Efficacy outcomes at week 12 and week 24Week 12Week 24FIL 200 mg (n = 104)FIL 100 mg (n = 121)ADA (n = 72)PBO (n = 128)FIL 200 mg (n = 104)FIL 100 mg (n = 121)ADA (n = 72)PBO (n = 128)ACR2077.9***67.8***65.343.872.1**75.2***68.154.7ACR5043.3***37.2***41.716.452.9***47.1**56.930.5ACR7019.2***17.4***15.33.932.7***29.8**29.213.3DAS28 (CRP)<2.647.1***37.2***44.415.661.5***46.3***50.023.4DAS28 (CRP)≤3.267.3***63.6***66.739.174.0***73.6***62.549.2ΔHAQ-DI−0.51a,***−0.40b,*−0.47c−0.28d−0.57e−0.53f−0.65g−0.48hΔmTSS0.02i0.06j0.03k0.16l−0.04m,*0.11n−0.01o0.21pΔSF-36 PCS7.8q,***6.4r,***7.0s3.7t8.8u,**7.2v,*9.5w5.8xΔPain, mm−24***−23***−23−12−28***−28***−28−21***P<0.001 vs PBO;**P<0.01 vs PBO;*P<0.05 vs PBO; all P-values are nominal. Binary efficacy endpoints were compared between FIL and PBO using Fisher's exact test. Comparisons of change from baseline between FIL vs PBO were conducted using mixed-effects models for repeated measures including treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit, baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.an = 98;bn = 114;cn = 67;dn = 117;en = 89;fn = 108;gn = 61;hn = 100;in = 94;jn = 113;kn = 62;ln = 112;mn = 89;nn = 105;on = 60;pn = 97;qn = 99;rn = 116;sn = 67;tn = 118;un = 91;vn = 109;wn = 62;xn = 100.ΔHAQ-DI, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; ΔmTSS, change from baseline in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score; ΔSF-36 PCS, change from baseline in Short Form-36 Physical Component Score; ACR, American College of Rheumatology; ADA, adalimumab; DAS28(CRP), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein; FIL, filgotinib; PBO, placebo. Conclusion  In a subgroup of patients from FINCH 1 with baseline moderately active RA, significantly greater improvements in disease activity were observed with both filgotinib doses over placebo and associated with lower radiographic progression and reduced functional deficit. Disclosure  M.H. Buch: Consultancies; MHB reports serving as a consultant for AbbVie; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Sandoz; Sanofi; and Serono. Grants/research support; MHB reports grants or research support from Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. D. Walker: Grants/research support; DW has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Novartis; and Pfizer, Inc. P.D.W. Kiely: Other; PK has attended advisory boards, been part of a speakers bureau, or received support to attend educational meetings from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, and Sanofi. C.J. Edwards: Consultancies; CJE has provided consultancy for AbbVie; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Eli Lilly; Fresenius; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Janssen; MSD; Mundipharma; Pfizer; Roche; Samsung; and Sanofi. Member of speakers’ bureau; CJE has served on speaker's bureaus for AbbVie; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Eli Lilly; Fresenius; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Janssen; MSD; Mundipharma; Pfizer; Roche; Samsung; and Sanofi. Grants/research support; CJE reports grants from AbbVie; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Eli Lilly; Fresenius; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; GSK; Janssen; MSD; Mundipharma; Pfizer; Roche; Samsung; and Sanofi. J. Barry: Corporate appointments; JB is an employee of Gilead Sciences Ltd. G. McCaughey: Corporate appointments; GMcC is an employee of Gilead Sciences Ltd. L. Akroyd: Corporate appointments; LA is an employee of Gilead Sciences Ltd. I. Tiamiyu: Corporate appointments; IT is an employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. L. Ye: Corporate appointments; LY is an employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. K. Chen: Corporate appointments; KC is an employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. P.C. Taylor: Consultancies; PCT has served as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, and UCB. Grants/research support; PCT reports research grants from Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Galapagos, and Celgene.

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 432-433
Author(s):  
W. P. Maksymowych ◽  
H. Marzo-Ortega ◽  
M. Ǿstergaard ◽  
L. S. Gensler ◽  
J. Ermann ◽  
...  

Background:Ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, is effective in patients (pts) with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), who had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).1Objectives:To determine if disease activity and patient-reported outcomes at Week 16 were similar between groups after stratifying pts by CRP/sacroiliac joint (SIJ) MRI status at baseline.Methods:COAST-X (NCT02757352) included pts with active nr-axSpA and objective signs of inflammation, i.e. presence of sacroiliitis on MRI (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society [ASAS]/ Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria) or elevation of serum CRP (>5.0 mg/L). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 mg IXE every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q2W, or placebo (PBO). Depending on the baseline values of CRP and MRI SIJ (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score), pts in the intent-to-treat population (N=239) were divided into 3 subgroups (CRP >5 and MRI ≥2; CRP ≤5 and MRI ≥2; CRP >5 and MRI <2). Logistic regression analysis with treatment, subgroup, and treatment-by-subgroup interaction was used to detect treatment group differences in ASAS40, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <2.1 (low disease activity), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 50 (BASDAI50) responses at Week 16. Analysis of covariance model with baseline value, treatment, subgroup, and treatment-by-subgroup interaction was used to detect the treatment group difference in change from baseline in Short Form-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS).Results:The proportion of pts achieving ASAS40 (primary endpoint), ASDAS <2.1, and BASDAI50 (secondary endpoints) was higher in IXE treatment groups compared to PBO at Week 16 (Figure 1). The response rates in IXE-treated subjects were higher in all subgroups (CRP >5 and MRI ≥2; CRP ≤5 and MRI ≥2; CRP >5 and MRI <2) without consistent differences in efficacy between the subgroups. Similarly, pts in the IXE groups showed improvement in SF-36 PCS scores (secondary endpoint) versus pts on PBO at Week 16 (Figure 2).Conclusion:Pts with active nr-axSpA and objective signs of inflammation at baseline who were treated with IXE showed an overall improvement in the signs and symptoms of the disease. The efficacy was not different between pts with both elevated CRP and active sacroiliitis on MRI and pts with either elevated CRP or active sacroiliitis on MRI.References:[1]Deodhar A, et al.Lancet.2020.Disclosure of Interests:Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Helena Marzo-Ortega Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB, Joerg Ermann Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis,Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Rebecca Bolce Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Gabriel Doridot Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Vladimir Geneus Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ann Leung: None declared, David Adams Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma


2009 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
J H Coombs ◽  
B J Bloom ◽  
F C Breedveld ◽  
M P Fletcher ◽  
D Gruben ◽  
...  

Objectives:To determine the efficacy of CP-690,550 in improving pain, function and health status in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate or a tumour necrosis factor α inhibitor.Methods:Patients were randomised equally to placebo, CP-690,550 5, 15 or 30 mg twice daily for 6 weeks, with 6 weeks’ follow-up. The patient’s assessment of arthritis pain (pain), patient’s assessment of disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) were recorded.Results:At week 6, significantly more patients in the CP-690,550 5, 15 and 30 mg twice-daily groups experienced a 50% improvement in pain compared with placebo (44%, 66%, 78% and 14%, respectively), clinically meaningful reductions in HAQ-DI (⩾0.3 units) (57%, 75%, 76% and 36%, respectively) and clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36 domains and physical and mental components.Conclusions:CP-690,550 was efficacious in improving the pain, function and health status of patients with RA, from week 1 to week 6.


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Kirkham ◽  
Elena Nikiphorou ◽  
Pedro López-Romero ◽  
Ilias Kouris ◽  
Thorsten Holzkaemper ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In RA, disease activity correlates with physical function and there is a link between joint damage and functional disability. In many countries, RA patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX or other conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) are not eligible for potentially more effective treatments, such as biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), unless they have high disease activity (HDA). Thus, managing RA patients with persistent moderate disease activity (MDA) despite cDMARD treatment poses a problem. Baricitinib (BARI) is a tsDMARD approved for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in adults. This post-hoc analysis assessed if RA patients with MDA benefit from improved physical function with BARI treatment to the same extent as patients with HDA. Methods Patients analysed were from the modified intention-to-treat populations in the BARI phase 3 studies RA-BEAM (MTX-IR) and RA-BUILD (cDMARD-IR) with moderate to severe disability (HAQ-Disability Index [HAQ-DI] score ≥1), MDA (Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score 11.1-26.0) or HDA (SDAI score&gt;26.0) and non-missing SDAI data at baseline. All patients fulfilled ACR criteria for RA. Patients from RA-BEAM received BARI 4 mg + MTX once daily (n = 396), adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks + MTX (n = 270) or placebo (PBO) + MTX (n = 390); patients from RA-BUILD received BARI 4 mg (n = 189) or 2 mg (n = 186) or PBO (n = 185). Multivariable linear regression (MLR) models were used to estimate mean HAQ-DI scores at baseline and week 24 (W24) for the treatment arms stratified by baseline disease activity (MDA or HDA SDAI). Age, RA duration, BMI, high-sensitivity CRP, baseline SDAI disease activity (MDA/HDA), treatment and treatment-by-baseline SDAI interaction were included as covariates. The MLR model for HAQ-DI at (W24) was further adjusted by baseline HAQ-DI. Results In patients from RA-BEAM with MDA at baseline, the mean adjusted HAQ-DI score at W24 was greater in PBO (1.314) than in BARI 4 mg (0.843) patients (Δ = 0.472; p = 0.001). A similar pattern of improved physical function with BARI was seen in RA-BUILD, but the adjusted mean difference in HAQ-DI score between PBO (1.376) and BARI 4 mg (1.113) was not statistically significant (Δ = 0.263; p = 0.109). In patients with HDA at baseline, the W24 mean adjusted HAQ-DI score was 0.443 points greater (p &lt; 0.001) with PBO (1.387) than with BARI 4 mg (0.944) in RA-BEAM, and 0.257 points greater (p &lt; 0.001) in RA-BUILD. Conclusion MTX-IR and/or cDMARD-IR RA patients with MDA and moderate to severe disability at baseline treated with BARI showed a similar pattern of improvement in physical function vs. PBO-treated patients to that seen in patients with HDA, supporting early use of BARI in MDA patients. As for those with HDA, patients with persistent MDA despite MTX and/or other cDMARD treatment could benefit from access to biologic and tsDMARDs to prevent disability progression. Disclosures B. Kirkham: Consultancies; AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer. Grants/research support; Eli Lilly, Novartis. E. Nikiphorou: Honoraria; Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Celltrion, Eli Lilly. P. López-Romero: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. I. Kouris: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. T. Holzkaemper: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. L. Zaremba-Pechmann: Other; contractor for Eli Lilly and Company. I. de la Torre: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. P.C. Taylor: Consultancies; AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, UCB. Grants/research support; Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Janet Pope ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Alan Friedman ◽  
Heidi S. Camp ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 886.2-886
Author(s):  
C. Bingham ◽  
S. Kafka ◽  
S. Black ◽  
S. Xu ◽  
W. Langholff ◽  
...  

Background:Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess health-related quality of life in clinical practice, research studies, and clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains an ongoing area of research. SF-36 is commonly used in RA trials but is not feasible for routine use in clinical practice settings. ThePatientReportedOutcomesMeasurementInformationSystem (PROMIS) may address this gap but has not been widely assessed in RA patients starting therapy in a real-world comparative effectiveness study, nor examined in that setting in relation to the SF36 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).Objectives:To assess validity of PROMIS based on Comparative and Pragmatic Study of Golimumab Intravenous (IV) Versus Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis (AWARE), an ongoing Phase 4 study providing real-world assessment of IV tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) medications in RA patients.Methods:AWARE is a prospective, non-interventional, 3-year study conducted at 88 US sites. RA patients were enrolled when initiating TNFi treatment. Treatment decisions were made by treating rheumatologists. We report baseline PROMIS-29 (7 domains and pain intensity), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) Short Form (SF) 6b (PI6b) and PROMIS Fatigue (F) Short Form 7a (F7a), domain T-Scores, and SF-36 subdomain and Component Scores (CS) in AWARE patients. Here we report baseline data obtained from the final 1-year AWARE dataset. Correlations between PROMIS measures and comparable SF-36 component scores were calculated using Pearson correlations. Data is shown as mean ± standard deviation (SD).Results:At baseline, mean CDAI of all patients (n=1262) was 32.3±15.6, with 70.4% in high disease activity (HDA, CDAI>22), 22.8% in moderate disease activity (MDA, CDAI: >10 and ≤22), 6.1% in low disease activity (LDA, CDAI: >2.8 and ≤10), and 0.7% in remission (CDAI ≤2.8). Mean PROMIS scores were >0.5 SD worse than population means for Physical Function (PF, 38.1±6.84), PI (63.4±7.68), F (58.8±9.95), Sleep Disturbance (55.1±8.68); and Ability to Participate in Social Roles/Activities (PSRA, 43.4±8.58). Baseline Depression and Anxiety were within 0.5 SD of population T-scores. PI6b, F7a, and P29 domain T-scores correlated with the comparable SF-36 subdomain and component scores (r’s >0.58), except sleep for which no comparable SF-36 element was applicable. Examples include: P6b (r=-0.80) and P29-PI (0.81) with SF-36 Bodily Pain; F7a (-0.77) and P29-F (-0.77) with SF-36 Vitality; P29-PF with SF-36 PF (0.77), Role-Physical (0.69), and Physical CS (0.73); P29 Anxiety with SF-36 Mental Health (-0.72), Role-Emotional (-0.56), Mental CS (-0.70); and P29-PRSA with SF-36-Social Functioning (0.71). Mean PROMIS-29 T-scores (except Anxiety and Sleep Disturbance) among patients with HDA were significantly different from patients with MDA, LDA or remission (p < 0.001 for all). Further, mean PROMIS T-scores of PF, F, PSRA, PI, Pain Intensity, PI6b and P7a among patients with MDA were significantly different from patients with more or less active RA (by CDAI category).Conclusion:Analysis of baseline results from a large cohort of RA patients indicates high correlations between individual P29 domain T-scores and SF-36 component scores, as well as categorical CDAI, providing strong evidence of PROMIS construct validity in a real-world population of RA patients.Disclosure of Interests:Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Shelly Kafka Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Shawn Black Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Stephen Xu Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Wayne Langholff Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Jeffrey Curtis Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB


Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 3535
Author(s):  
Maria Teresa Guagnano ◽  
Chiara D’Angelo ◽  
Daniela Caniglia ◽  
Pamela Di Giovanni ◽  
Eleonora Celletti ◽  
...  

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disease affecting the synovial joints and causing severe disability. Environmental and lifestyle factors, including diet, have been proposed to play a role in the onset and severity of RA. Dietary manipulation may help to manage the symptoms of RA by lowering inflammation and potentially decreasing pain. Methods: In 40 patients with long-standing RA with stable symptoms and treated with conventional (c-) and biological (b-) disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), the effect of a 3-month diet avoiding meat, gluten, and lactose (and all dairy products; privative diet) was evaluated in comparison with a control balanced diet including those foods. Both diets were designed to reduce weight since all patients were overweight or obese. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the diets, and RA was clinically assessed at Time 0 (T0), through the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), for pain, and the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS 28) for RA activity. Patients were also administered the Short Form Health survey (SF-36) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). At T0, a blood sample was collected for laboratory tests and adipokines measurements, and anthropometric measurements were compared. These evaluations were repeated at the end of the 3 months’ dietary regimens. Results: A significant decrease in VAS and the improvement of the overall state of physical and mental health, assessed through SF-36, was observed in patients assigned to the privative diet. Both dietary regimens resulted in the improvement of quality of life compared to baseline values; however, the change was significant only for the privative diet. With either diet, patients showed significant decreases in body weight and body mass index, with a reduction in waist and hips circumference and lower basal glucose and circulating leptin levels. A privative diet was also able to significantly reduce systolic (p = 0.003) and diastolic (p = 0.025) arterial pressure. The number of circulating leukocytes and neutrophils, and the level of hs-C-Reactive Protein also decreased after 3 months of the meat-, lactose-, and gluten-free diet. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a privative diet can result in a better control of inflammation in RA patients under stable optimized drug treatment.


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Walker ◽  
Alan Kivitz ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Susan Lee ◽  
Lei Ye ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Aims  Filgotinib (FIL) is an oral, potent, selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor. FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) assessed FIL efficacy, safety and patient reported outcome (PRO) data in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR). We report data through week 52 (W52) of the FINCH 1 study. Primary outcome results at week (W)12 and W24 were previously reported. Methods  This global, phase 3, double-blind, active- and placebo (PBO)-controlled study randomised MTX-IR pts with active RA on a background of stable MTX 3:3:2:3 to oral FIL 200 mg or FIL 100 mg once daily, subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every 2W, or PBO up to W52; pts receiving PBO at W24 were re-randomised to FIL 100 or 200 mg. Efficacy was assessed using clinical, radiographic, and pt-reported outcomes; W52 comparisons were not adjusted for multiplicity, and nominal p-values are reported. Safety endpoints included types and rates of adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities. PRO assessment included the HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale, SF-36, and FACIT-Fatigue questionnaire. Change from baseline (CFB) at various time points was assessed up to W52 for each treatment group. Results  Of 1,755 treated pts, 1,417 received study drug through W52. FIL efficacy was sustained through W52 with DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6 remission rates of 54%, 43%, and 46% of pts receiving FIL 200 and 100 mg and ADA, respectively, (nominal p for FIL 200 vs ADA = 0.024) (Table 1). FIL safety profile through W52 was consistent with W24 data. AEs of interest were infrequent and balanced among treatments. As early as W2, through W24, pts receiving either dose of FIL experienced nominally significantly greater (p &lt; 0.001) CFB in HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale than those receiving PBO. These improvements were sustained up to W52. In general, CFB for HAQ-DI, VAS pain scale, and FACIT-Fatigue observed for the FIL groups was higher or comparable to ADA through W52 (Table 1). P133 Table 1:Efficacy and PRO outcomes at Week 52Efficacy OutcomeFIL 200 mg (n = 475)FIL 100 mg (n = 480)ADA (n = 325)ACR20/50/70, %a78/62/4476/59/3874/59/39DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, %a66+5959mTSSb,c0.18+++0.450.61HAQ-DIc,d−0.93+−0.85−0.85VAS pain scalec,d−42−40−40SF-36 PCSc,d12.011.512.4FACIT-Fc,d11.912.211.7aNon-responder imputation,bLeast squares mean change from baseline,cObserved case,dMean change from baseline.+nominal p &lt; 0.05, +++nominal p &lt; 0.001 vs ADA ADA, adalimumab; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue; FIL, filgotinib; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; mTSS, modified van der Heijde TSS; SF-36, 36-Item Short Form Survey. Conclusion  Through W52, both FIL 200 and 100 mg showed sustained efficacy, rapid and sustained improvement in patient QoL based on clinical and pt-reported outcomes and were well tolerated in MTX-IR pts with RA. Disclosure  D. Walker: Consultancies; Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche. A. Kivitz: Consultancies; AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Novartis. Member of speakers’ bureau; Celgene, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion, AbbVie. Y. Tanaka: Honoraria; AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Y. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda and UCB. S. Lee: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. L. Ye: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. H. Hu: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. F. Matzkies: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. B. Bartok: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. B. Bartok: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Guo: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. J.S. Sundy: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. A. Jahreis: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. R. Besuyen: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos BV. Other; Employee of Galapagos BV. B. Combe: Other; Reports research support, honoraria, consulting and speaker fees from AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi; and UCB. D. van der Heijde: Consultancies; AbbVie; Amgen; Astellas; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Cyxone; Daiichi-Sankyo; Eisai; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Glaxo-Smith-Kline; Janssen;, Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Regeneron; Roche; Sanofi; Takeda; and UCB. J. Simon-Campos: None. H.S.B. Baraf: Grants/research support; AbbVie; Horizon; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Pfizer; Janssen; and Merck. U. Kumar: None. C. Tasset: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos NV. Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. N. Mozaffarian: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences, Inc. Other; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. R.B.M. Landewé: Consultancies; AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; and UCB. S. Bae: None. E. Keystone: Other; Reports research support, consulting, and speaker fees from AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Lilly, ; Merck; Myriad Autoimmune; Pfizer; PuraPharm; Sandoz; Sanofi-Genzyme; Samsung Bioepsis; and UCB. P. Nash: Other; Reports research support, consulting, and speaker and personal fees from AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Eli Lilly & Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Janssen; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Pfizer;, Roche; Sanofi; and UCB.


RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Bird ◽  
Stephen Hall ◽  
Peter Nash ◽  
Carol A Connell ◽  
Kenneth Kwok ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined response to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times a day in patients with seropositive vs seronegative RA.MethodsData were pooled from five Phase III studies of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD)- or biological DMARD-inadequate responders (ORAL Step [NCT00960440]; ORAL Scan [NCT00847613]; ORAL Solo [NCT00814307]; ORAL Sync [NCT00856544]; ORAL Standard [NCT00853385]). ‘Serotype’ subgroups were: anticyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) and rheumatoid factor (RF) positive (anti-CCP+/RF+); anti-CCP+/RF negative (-); anti-CCP-/RF+; anti-CCP-/RF-. At month 3, ACR20/50/70 response rates, Disease Activity Score (DAS28-4[ESR])-defined remission (DAS28-4[ESR]<2.6) and low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-4[ESR]≤3.2), changes from baseline (CFB) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) were evaluated. Safety endpoints were compared.ResultsBaseline demographics/characteristics were similar across subgroups. Tofacitinib significantly improved ACR20/50/70 response rates, DAS28-4(ESR) LDA rates and CFB in HAQ-DI and FACIT-F vs placebo across subgroups. More anti-CCP+/RF+ than anti-CCP-/RF- patients had ACR20/50/70 responses (ACR20/50: both tofacitinib doses; ACR70: 10 mg two times a day). SF-36 physical functioning improved in anti-CCP+/RF+, anti-CCP+/RF- and anti-CCP-/RF+ patients (both tofacitinib doses) and anti-CCP-/RF- patients (10 mg two times a day) vs placebo. More anti-CCP+/RF+ and anti-CCP+/RF- than anti-CCP-/RF- patients achieved DAS28-4(ESR) remission and LDA with tofacitinib 10 mg two times a day. Frequency of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across subgroups.ConclusionGenerally, tofacitinib efficacy (ACR20/50/70 responses) and safety were similar across subgroups. DAS28-4(ESR) remission rates and SF-36 physical functioning appeared lower in anti-CCP- patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Gao ◽  
Hua Zhong ◽  
Lihong Chen ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Hong Yao ◽  
...  

Abstract ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the clinical features as well as the functional and psychological status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia in a real-world setting in China.MethodsA total of 202 inpatients with rheumatoid arthritis from the Department of Rheumatology and Immunology at Peking University People’s Hospital were enrolled between December 2018 and April 2019. These inpatients were assessed for the presence of fibromyalgia using the 1990 American College of Rheumatology’s classification criteria for fibromyalgia. Disease activity and functional and psychological status were assessed using the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS-28), Short Form-36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Visual Analog Scale.ResultsOf 202 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 42 (20.8%) had concurrent fibromyalgia. Compared to patients without fibromyalgia, those with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia had higher DAS-28 scores (6.0 vs. 4.4, P=0.011) and notably higher tender joint counts (16.5 vs. 4.5, P<0.001). Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia had worse HAQ scores (1.24 vs. 0.66, P<0.001) and lower SF-36 scores (28.6 vs. 58.2, P<0.001). Additionally, patients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia experienced more fatigue (88.1% vs. 50.6%, P<0.001) and had higher anxiety (10 vs. 4, P<0.001) and depression scores (12 vs. 6, P<0.001). No significant differences in erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein concentration, morning stiffness period, or swollen joint counts were identified between the groups.ConclusionsPatients with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia had higher disease activity, worse functional and psychological status, and poorer quality of life. DAS-28 scores may have been overestimated in these patients. When patients with rheumatoid arthritis do not achieve remission, the possibility of fibromyalgia should be considered.


Author(s):  
Marie Skougaard ◽  
Tanja S Jørgensen ◽  
Mia J Jensen ◽  
Christine Ballegaard ◽  
Jørgen Guldberg-Møller ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES The objective was to investigate interplay between change (Δ) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) quantified by physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) retrieved from short-form health survey (SF-36), change in disease activity (ΔDAS28CRP) and manifestations of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA). METHODS PsA patients initiating new medical therapy were enrolled. Independent disease measures evaluating disease activity, enthesitis, psoriasis, pain and fatigue were collected at treatment initiation and after 4 months. Interplay between independent disease measures and dependent outcome measures; ΔPCS and ΔMCS was described with univariate regression analyses. Multivariate regression analyses were applied to assess impact of independent variables e.g. individual disease outcome measures versus ΔDAS28CRP on ΔPCS and ΔMCS. RESULTS 108 PsA patients were included. In the univariate regression analyses, improvement in fatigue, pain, and disability were associated with improvement in ΔPCS (β; -2.08, -0.18, -13.00, respectively, all; p &lt; 0.001) and ΔMCS (β; -1.59, -0.12, -6.07, respectively, and p &lt; 0.001, p &lt; 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). When PROs were included in the final multivariate models, improvements in ΔPCS and ΔMCS were associated with improvements in pain, fatigue and disability (p &lt; 0.001). Improvement in enthesitis positively impacted ΔPCS (β -0.31, p &lt; 0.001). No association was found between change in skin psoriasis, ΔPCS and ΔMCS (β 0.15, p = 0.056 and β 0.05, p = 0.561, respectively). CONCLUSION In this PsA patient cohort, diminishing pain, disability and fatigue improved PCS and MCS significantly. Changes in enthesitis and psoriasis, did not grossly impact HRQoL compared to DAS28CRP. Individual PsA manifestations influence HRQoL differently which is clinically important when targeting treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document