245 Remission/low disease activity is an achievable treatment target in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): results from a routine care European cohort of PsA patients treated with ustekinumab or TNF inhibitors

Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Siebert ◽  
Laure Gossec ◽  
Paul Bergmans ◽  
Kurt de Vlam ◽  
Elisa Gremese ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 351.2-352
Author(s):  
W. Fong ◽  
C. Holroyd ◽  
B. Davidson ◽  
R. Armstrong ◽  
N. Harvey ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 454.1-454
Author(s):  
G. Akdemir ◽  
I.M. Markusse ◽  
A.A. Schouffoer ◽  
P.B. de Sonnaville ◽  
B.A. Grillet ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 320.1-321
Author(s):  
E. Loibner ◽  
V. Ritschl ◽  
B. Leeb ◽  
P. Spellitz ◽  
G. Eichbauer-Sturm ◽  
...  

Background:Gender differences in prevalence and disease course are known in various rheumatic diseases; however, investigations of gender difference concerning therapeutical response have yielded variable results.Objectives:The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate, whether a gender difference in response rate to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and apremilast in bDMARD-naïve patients could be observed across the three most prevalent inflammatory arthritis diseases: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondylarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Additionally, a response to individual TNF blockers was investigated in this respect.Methods:Data from bDMARD-naïve RA-, SpA- and PsA-patients from Bioreg, the Austrian registry for biological DMARDs in rheumatic diseases, were used. Patients with a baseline (Visit 1=V1) and follow-up visits at 6 months (Visit 2=V2) and 12 months (Visit 3=V3) were included and response to therapy with TNF-inhibitors (TNFi), furthermore to therapy with rituximab, tocilizumab and apremilast was analyzed according to gender. The remaining bDMARDs were not analyzed due to small numbers. Key response-parameter for RA was disease activity score (DAS28), whereas for PsoA the Stockerau Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (SASPA) and for SpA the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) were employed; in addition, the Health assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used. Data were analyzed in R Statistic stratified by gender using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests.Results:354 women and 123 men with RA (n=477), 81 women and 69 men with PsA (n=150), 121 women and 191 men with SpA (n=312) were included. No significant differences in biometrics was seen between female and male patients at baseline in all diseases.In RA patients overall DAS28 decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (DAS28: V1: male: 4.38 [3.66, 5.11], female: 4.30 [3.68, 5.03], p(m/f) = 0.905; V2: male: 2.66 [1.73, 3.63], female: 3.10 [2.17, 3.98], p(m/f) = 0.015; V3: male: 2.25 [1.39, 3.36], female: 3.01 [1.87, 3.87], p(m/f) = 0.002). For TNF inhibitors (n=311), there was a significant difference between genders at V2 (Fig.1a). Patients receiving Rituximab (n=41) displayed a significantly higher DAS28 at baseline in females, which diminished in the follow up: V1: (p(m/f) p=0.002; V2: p=0.019; V3: p=0.13); response to tocilizumab (n=63) did not show any gender differences.In PsA patients overall SASPA decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (SASPA: V1: male: 4.00 [2.80, 5.20], female: 4.40 [2.80, 5.80], p(m/f) = 0.399; V2: male: 2.20 [1.20, 3.50], female: 3.40 [2.00, 5.00], p(m/f) = 0.071; V3: male: 1.80 [0.80, 2.70], female: 3.01 [2.35, 4.80], p(m/f) = 0.001). For TNF inhibitors (n=79), there was a significant difference between genders at V3 (Fig 1a). For Apremilast (n=39), there was a significant difference between genders at V2 (Fig.1c).In SpA patients overall BASDAI decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (BASDAI: V1: male: 4.70 [2.88, 6.18], female: 4.80 [3.30, 6.20], p(m/f) = 0.463; V2: male: 3.05 [2.00, 4.60], female: 3.64 [2.62, 5.41], p(m/f) = 0.039; V3: male: 3.02 [1.67, 4.20], female: 3.65 [2.18, 5.47], p(m/f) = 0.016). In V3 a differential BASDAI in response to TNFi (n=299) was observed (Fig.1a).Possible differences of response to individual TNFi (etanercept, infliximab, other TNFi) measured by HAQ were investigated in all diseases together. The difference between male and females was significant at baseline for all 3 TNFi; whereas with the use of ETA the significant difference was carried through to V2 and V3, it was lost with the use of IFX and was variable with the other TNFi (Fig.1b)Figure 1.Conclusion:Female patients showed a statistically lower response to TNFi in all three disease entities (RA, SpA and PsoA) to a variable degree in our homogenous central european population. Interestingly, the difference was not uniform across individual TNFi when measured by HAQ. Gender differences were also seen in response to Apremilast.Disclosure of Interests:Elisabeth Loibner: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared, Burkhard Leeb Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Actiopharm, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Kwizda, Celgene, Sandoz, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Grant/research support from: TRB, Roche, Consultancies: AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Kwizda, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz;, Peter Spellitz: None declared, Gabriela Eichbauer-Sturm: None declared, Jochen Zwerina: None declared, Manfred Herold: None declared, Miriam Stetter: None declared, Rudolf Puchner Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Kwizda, MSD, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Franz Singer: None declared, Ruth Fritsch-Stork: None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 778-779
Author(s):  
E. Gremese ◽  
F. Ciccia ◽  
C. Selmi ◽  
G. Cuomo ◽  
R. Foti ◽  
...  

Background:There are still unmet needs in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including in terms of treatment persistence, which is a function of effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction. Ustekinumab (UST) was the first new biologic drug to be developed for the treatment of PsA after tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:To compare treatment persistence, effectiveness and safety of UST and TNFi in Italian patients within the PsABio cohort.Methods:PsABio (NCT02627768) is an observational study of 1st/2nd/3rd-line UST or TNFi treatment in PsA in 8 European countries. The current analysis set includes 222 eligible patients treated in 15 Italian centres, followed to Month 12 (±3 months). Treatment persistence/risk of stopping was analysed using Kaplan−Meier (KM) and Cox regression analysis. Proportions of patients reaching minimal disease activity (MDA)/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA) low disease activity (LDA)/remission were analysed using logistic regression, including propensity score (PS) adjustment for imbalanced baseline covariates, and non-response imputation of effectiveness endpoints if treatment was stopped/switched before 1 year. Last observation carried forward data are reported.Results:Of patients starting UST and TNFi, 75/101 (74.3%) and 77/121 (63.6%), respectively, persisted with treatment at 1 year. The observed mean persistence was 410 days for UST and 363 days for TNFi. KM curves and PS-adjusted hazard ratios confirmed significantly higher persistence (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]) for UST versus TNFi overall (0.46 [0.26; 0.82]; Figure 1). Persistence was also higher for UST than TNFi in patients receiving monotherapy without methotrexate (0.31 [0.15; 0.63]), in females (0.41 [0.20; 0.83]), and in patients with body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 (0.34 [0.14; 0.87]) or >30 kg/m2 (0.19 [0.06; 0.54]). There was no significant difference in persistence between treatments in patients with BMI 25−30 kg/m2. While patients receiving 1st- and 3rd-line UST or TNFi showed similar risk of discontinuation (0.60 [0.27; 1.29] and 0.36 [0.10; 1.25], respectively), patients receiving 2nd-line UST showed better persistence than those receiving 2nd-line TNFi (0.33 [0.13; 0.87]). Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects. In patients with available follow-up data, the mean (standard deviation) baseline cDAPSA was 26.3 (15.4) for UST and 23.5 (12.3) for TNFi; at 1-year follow-up, 43.5% of UST- and 43.6% of TNFi-treated patients reached cDAPSA LDA/remission. MDA was reached in 24.2% of UST- and 28.0% of TNFi-treated patients, and VLDA in 12.5% of UST- and 10.2% of TNFi-treated patients. After PS adjustment (stoppers/switchers as non-responders), odds ratios (95% CI) at 1 year did not differ significantly between UST and TNFi groups for reaching cDAPSA LDA/remission (1.08 [0.54; 2.15]), MDA (0.96 [0.45; 2.05]) or VLDA (0.98 [0.35; 2.76]). In total, 23 (20.4%) patients reported ≥1 treatment emergent adverse event with UST and 30 (22.2%) with TNFi; 6 (5.3%) and 10 (7.4%) patients, respectively, discontinued treatment because of an adverse event.Conclusion:In the Italian PsABio cohort, UST had better overall persistence compared with TNFi, as well as in specific subgroups: females, patients on monotherapy without methotrexate, with BMI <25 or >30 kg/m2, and patients receiving UST as 2nd-line treatment. At 1 year, both treatments showed similar effectiveness, as measured by cDAPSA responses and MDA/VLDA achievement.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Janssen. Contributing author: Prof. Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, University of Milan, ItalyDisclosure of Interests:Elisa Gremese: None declared, Francesco Ciccia Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abiogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Carlo Selmi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Giovanna CUOMO: None declared, Rosario Foti Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Marco Matucci Cerinic Speakers bureau: Actelion, Biogen, Janssen, Lilly, Consultant of: Chemomab, Grant/research support from: MSD, Fabrizio Conti Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Enrico Fusaro Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Giuliana Guggino Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Pfizer, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Andrea Delle Sedie: None declared, Roberto Perricone: None declared, Luca Idolazzi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Paolo Moscato: None declared, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Silvia Marelli Employee of: Janssen, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucie Nekvindová ◽  
Jiří Vencovský ◽  
Karel Pavelka ◽  
Pavel Horák ◽  
Zlatuše Křístková ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Treat-to-target (T2T) is a widely accepted strategy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It recommends attaining a goal of at least low disease activity (LDA) within 6 months; otherwise, the current therapy should be modified. We aimed to investigate whether switching a first-line targeted therapy (TT) in patients not reaching LDA within 6 months leads to a higher probability of meeting LDA at the 12-month visit in daily clinical practice using data from Czech registry ATTRA. Methods We included patients with RA starting the first-line TT from 1 January 2012 to 31 January 2017 with at least 1-year follow-up. We created four mutually exclusive cohorts based on (1) switching to another TT within the first year and (2) reaching a treatment target (DAS28-ESR ≤ 3.2) at the 6-month visit. The primary outcome was the comparison of odds for reaching remission (REM) or LDA at the 12-month visit between patients switching and not switching TT after not reaching treatment target at 6 months. Before using logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio, we employed the propensity score to match patients at the 6-month visit. Results A total of 1275 patients were eligible for the analysis. Sixty-two patients switched within the first 5 months of the treatment before evaluating treatment response at the 6-month visit (C1); 598 patients reached the treatment target within 6 months of therapy (C2); 124 patients did not reach treatment response at 6-month visit and switched to another therapy (C3), and 491 patients continued with the same treatment despite not reaching LDA at the 6-month visit (C4). We matched 75 patients from cohort C3 and 75 patients from C4 using the propensity score. Patients following the T2T principle (C3) showed 2.8 (95% CI 1.4–5.8; p = 0.005) times increased likelihood of achieving REM/LDA at the 12-month visit compared to patients not following the T2T strategy (C4). Conclusions In daily clinical practice, the application of the T2T strategy is underused. Switching TT after not reaching REM/LDA within the first 6 months leads to a higher probability of achieving REM/LDA in RA patients at the 12-month visit.


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Siebert ◽  
Elisa Gremese ◽  
Paul Bergmans ◽  
Kurt de Vlam ◽  
Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The additional benefit of methotrexate (MTX) as a concomitant treatment in PsA has not been fully elucidated for TNF inhibitors (TNFi) and no real-world data on this currently exist for ustekinumab (UST). We investigated the additive effect of MTX on the ability to reach composite treatment targets beyond monotherapy with UST or TNFi, and the ability to improve patient-reported outcomes in a real-world clinical setting in 8 European countries. Methods The PsABio study (NCT02627768) evaluates persistence, effectiveness and tolerability of 1st, 2nd or 3rd-line UST or TNFi in patients with PsA. Proportions of patients reaching minimal disease activity (MDA)/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) low disease activity (LDA) or remission, as well as the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS; score ≤4) of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID-12) were evaluated. Here we present 6-month follow-up data using intention to treat (ITT) analysis; patients who stopped/switched initial treatment were imputed as non-responders. The effect of MTX co-therapy was investigated within UST and TNFi cohorts, as well as between the cohorts, using multivariate logistic regression including interaction terms, and propensity score (PS) analysis to adjust for imbalanced, potentially prognostic, baseline covariates. Results Of 930 patients, data was available for 868 ITT patients, including patients who switched/stopped before 6 months (UST: n = 28/426 [6.6%], TNFi: n = 44/442 [10.0%]). At baseline there were no relevant differences in demographics and disease activity, however there were significant differences in skin involvement as well as csDMARD and NSAID exposure. Co-therapy with MTX did not increase the likelihood of achieving any of the outcomes in either the UST or TNFi cohorts (Table 1). After PS adjustment, co-treatment with MTX did not influence treatment effects differently when added to UST compared with TNFi. concomitant use of csDMARDs other than MTX yielded very similar results. Conclusion In a real-world setting, concomitant treatment with MTX in addition to UST or TNFi was not associated with enhanced effects across a broad variety of disease outcomes, including disease activity, disease impact, and skin involvement within or between treatment cohorts, after PS adjustment for baseline confounders. Disclosures S. Siebert: Consultancies; AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Novartis. Grants/research support; Pfizer, Janssen, BMS, Celgene, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim. E. Gremese: Consultancies; AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer. P. Bergmans: Shareholder/stock ownership; Johnson & Johnson. Other; Employee of Janssen. K. de Vlam: Consultancies; Johnson & Johnson. B. Joven-Ibáñez: Member of speakers’ bureau; Celgene, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Janssen. G. Katsifis: None. T.V. Korotaeva: Consultancies; Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, AbbVie, Celgene, Biocad, Janssen, UCB, Lilly, Novartis-Sandoz. W. Noël: Other; Employee of Janssen. C. Selmi: None. P.P. Sfikakis: None. P. Smirnov: Other; Employee of Janssen. E. Theander: Other; Employee of Janssen. M.T. Nurmohamed: Grants/research support; Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, BMS, MSD, Mundipharma, UCB, Janssen, Menarini, Lilly, Sanofi, Celgene. L. Gossec: Honoraria; AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB. Grants/research support; Pfizer. J.S. Smolen: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO Pharma, Janssen, Lilly, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document