SAT0123 TREATMENT SATISFACTION, EXPECTATIONS, PATIENT PREFERENCES AND CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING DIGITAL HEALTH LITERACY (DHL), AND THE IMPACT OF SUBOPTIMAL DISEASE CONTROL IN A LARGE INTERNATIONAL COHORT OF PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA): THE SENSE STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 996-997
Author(s):  
P. C. Taylor ◽  
C. Ancuta ◽  
O. Nagy ◽  
M. Delavega ◽  
A. Gordeev ◽  
...  

Background:Patient characteristics, their treatment preferences and goals are important determinants of treatment success in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:SENSE study aimed at assessing the impact of inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on disease outcomes, and analyze their attitude, their treatment and disease.Methods:Non-interventional, cross-sectional study conducted in 18 countries in Europe, Asia, and America. Adult RA patients with moderate/high disease activity were eligible. Patient satisfaction was assessed by Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, Version 1.4 (TSQM v1.4). Treatment adherence, patient preferences, and expectations were evaluated by visual analog scale. eHealth Literacy Scale was employed for evaluating DHL. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis, v2.0 (WPAI-RA) was used to assess workability and patient documentation for healthcare resource utilization (HRU).Results:1624 patients were included in this analysis; most were female (84.2%), middle-aged, and had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) disease duration of 10.5 (9.3) years. 11.9% of the patients had retired early and 6.0% were unemployed due to RA. Mean (SD) total WPAI-RA score was 55.1% (26.7). In the previous 3 months, the mean (SD) number of healthcare professional and emergency room visits were 2.2 (2.5) and 1.6 (1.3), respectively. Mean (SD) TSQM v1.4 global satisfaction subscore was 60.9 (20.9), with only 13.5% reporting good treatment satisfaction (TSQM global ≥80). The leading treatment expectations were ‘general improvement of arthritis’, ‘less joint pain’, and ‘lasting relief of RA symptoms,’ with mean (SD) scores of 5.7 (1.6–1.7) for each. 60.7% of patients preferred oral administration and 31.3% preferred not to use drug combinations for RA. Preferred time to effect was predominantly ‘up to one week’ (71.1%). Least frequently side effects rated ‘acceptable’ were ‘increased risk for malignancies’ (3.5%) and ‘increased risk for cardiovascular diseases’ (3.3%). Most patients (67.4%) had poor DHL. Good adherence (in 87.4% of patients) was significantly associated with lower levels of joint pain.Conclusion:Suboptimal disease control has a significant impact on satisfaction, workability, and HRU. Our results can support shared decision-making when setting RA treatment strategy.Disclosure of Interests: :Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, CODRINA ANCUTA Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Ewopharma, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Ewopharma, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and Eli Lilly, Orsolya Nagy Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Maria DeLaVega: None declared, Andrey Gordeev Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Roche, and UCB., Radka Jankova Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Roche, and UCB, Umut Kalyoncu Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Ivan Lagunes-Galindo Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jadranka Morovic-Vergles Speakers bureau: Abbvie., Roche, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Mylan, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, Mariana Peixoto GU e Silva de Souza Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and GSK, Consultant of: AbbVie, Roche, UCB, Pfizer, and Jansen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, UCB, Pfizer, and Jansen, Bernadette Rojkovich: None declared, Prodromos Sidiropoulos: None declared, Atsushi Kawakami: None declared

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1470.1-1470
Author(s):  
U. Kalyoncu ◽  
A. Kucuk ◽  
G. Sargin ◽  
F. Ozdener ◽  
S. Yolbaş ◽  
...  

Background:Suboptimal control of RA may lead to severe and progressive articular damage, loss of function, and deterioration of the quality of life (QoL).Objectives:To assess treatment satisfaction, sociodemographic, clinical, health care resource utilization, and QoL characteristics of patients with sub-optimally controlled RA and treated with conventional synthetic and/or biologic DMARDs.Methods:This study was an international, multicenter, cross-sectional, non-interventional study. Adult RA patients with moderate to severe disease activity (DAS28>3.2) were enrolled. Patient satisfaction was evaluated with Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM, version 1.4) with a scale ranging from 0 (indicating poor satisfaction) to 100 (indicating perfect satisfaction). Patients were questioned regarding treatment adherence, patient preferences, and expectations. Workability was evaluated using Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA, version 2.0). Short Form 36 (V2) survey were performed to all patients.Results:One hundred sixty-four patients were included in the study and most (78.0%) were female. The median age was 57.0 years, ranging between 22.0 and 84.0 years. Half of the patients (50.6%) were primary school graduates and 6.1% were unemployed due to RA and seeking work. Median time since RA diagnosis was 8.0 years and mean (±SD) DAS28-CRP score was 4.8 (±1.0). Mean total activity impairment was 54.9% (±27.4). In the past 3 months from enrollment, the mean number of healthcare professional and emergency room visits were 1.8 (±1.1) and 1.8 (±1.3), respectively. Mean number and length of hospitalizations in the previous 3 months were 1.1 (±0.3) times and 8.3 (±7.2) days, respectively. Mean TSQM scores were 53.5 (±21.4) for effectiveness, 86.0 (±26.7) for side effects, 67.8 (±16.5) for convenience, and 57.7 (±22.0) for global satisfaction. The leading expectation was ‘lasting relief of RA symptoms’ (mean score: 5.8). Preferred time until the effect of onset was ‘up to 1 week’ for 76.2% of the patients. Most of the patients (57.9%) preferred oral administrations and the most preferred frequency of administration was ‘once per day’ (46.3%). Mean physical and mental component summary scores for Short Form 36 (V2) survey were 37.9 (±8.3) and 40.1 (±10.7).Conclusion:Two-thirds of the patients with RA who have suboptimal responses are not satisfied with their treatments. Moreover, oral and once-daily treatment approaches stand out in patient preferences. Finally, suboptimal control leads to deterioration in clinical characteristics, workability, and QoL of patients with RA.Acknowledgements:The design, study conduct, and financial support for the study were provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the publication. All authors have received research funding for this study. The authors wish to thank B. Murat Ozdemir of Monitor CRO for medical editing and reviewing services of this manuscript. AbbVie provided funding to Monitor CRO for this work.Disclosure of Interests:Umut Kalyoncu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, and Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, and Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, Adem Kucuk Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gokhan Sargin: None declared, Fatih Ozdener Speakers bureau: UCB, Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition, Grant/research support from: Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition, Servet Yolbaş Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, and MSD, Berna Yurttas: None declared, Sezin Turan: None declared, Gezmiş Kimyon Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, MSD, Johnson and Johnson, and Celltrion, Consultant of: Amgen, and Pfizer, ALI SAHIN Speakers bureau: Roche, Pfizer, and AbbVie, Consultant of: Roche and Pfizer, Sedat Yilmaz Speakers bureau: UCB, Pfizer, AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Celltrion, Consultant of: Pfizer and Novartis, Ridvan Mercan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Amgen, and Celltrion, Consultant of: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, and Celltrion, Hakan Emmungil Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, and MSD, Muhammet Çinar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Celltrion, UCB, Amgen, Novartis, and MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Celltrion, UCB, Amgen, Novartis, and MSD, İlhan Sezer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Celltrion, UCB, Amgen, and Abdi Ibrahim, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Celltrion, UCB, Amgen, and Abdi Ibrahim, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Celltrion, UCB, Amgen, and Abdi Ibrahim, Timuçin Kaşifoğlu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Fulya Cosan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, and MSD, Taskin Senturk: None declared, Nevsun Inanc Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly and MSD, Consultant of: Roche and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Roche and Pfizer


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad A Sherbini ◽  
James M Gwinnutt ◽  
Kimme L Hyrich ◽  
Suzanne M M Verstappen ◽  

Abstract Background/Aims  Methotrexate (MTX) is the most common treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The prevalence of adverse events (AEs) associated with MTX treatment for RA have been studied extensively, but there are limited data on the predictors of these AEs. This study aims to summarise the prevalence rates of MTX AEs, including gastrointestinal (GI), neurological, mucocutaneous, and elevated alanine transaminase (ALT) enzyme, and to identify baseline demographic and clinical predictors of these AEs. Methods  The Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS) is a UK multi-centre prospective cohort study of patients with RA starting MTX for the first time. Relevant demographic, medication, clinical and disease related data were collected at baseline. AEs were reported at six and twelve months follow-ups. The prevalence rates of AEs were calculated based on the proportions of patients who reported having had an AE within one year of follow-up. The associations between candidate baseline predictors and AEs were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results  A total of 2,089 patients were included with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation: 13.5) years, 1390 (66.5%) were women. 1,814 and 1,579 patients completed the 6 and 12 months follow-up visits, respectively. The prevalence rates of the AEs within one year of follow-up were: GI = 777 (40.6%), mucocutaneous = 441 (23.1%), neurological = 487 (25.5%), elevated ALT (> upper limit of normal [ULN]) = 286 (15.5%). Younger age and being a woman were associated with increased risk of GI AEs, (age: OR 0.97 per year increase in age, 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; male sex: OR 0.58 vs female, 95% CI 0.46, 0.74) (Table 1). Higher baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score was an independent predictor of GI, mucocutaneous, and neurological AEs. Furthermore, having ALT >1xULN at baseline or history of diabetes was associated with increased risk of subsequent ALT elevation during the study follow-up. Conclusion  In patients with RA starting MTX, GI AEs were the most commonly reported AEs during the first year of follow-up. The identified predictors of AEs may facilitate discussions between clinicians and patients prior to commencing MTX, and may lead to increased adherence and consequently improved effectiveness. Disclosure  A.A. Sherbini: None. J.M. Gwinnutt: Grants/research support; BMS. K.L. Hyrich: Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie. Grants/research support; Pfizer, UCB, BMS. S.M.M. Verstappen: Consultancies; Celltrion. Member of speakers’ bureau; Pfizer. Grants/research support; BMS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 54.1-54
Author(s):  
S. Benamar ◽  
C. Lukas ◽  
C. Daien ◽  
C. Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
...  

Background:Polypharmacy is steadily increasing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They may interfere with treatment response and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Medications taken by a patient may reflect active comorbidities, whereas comorbidity indices usually used include past or current diseases.Objectives:To evaluate whether polypharmarcy is associated with treatment response and adverse events in an early RA cohort and to establish whether polypharmacy could represent a substitute of comorbidities.Methods:We used data from the French cohort ESPOIR, including 813 patients with early onset arthritis. Patients included the current study had to start their first disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) within 24 months of inclusion in the cohort. Disease activity data were collected at one, five and ten years from the initiation of the first DMARD. For each patient, treatments were collected at baseline and at five years. Medications count included all specialties other than background RA therapy, analgesics/NSAIDs and topicals. Polypharmacy was defined as a categorical variable based on the median and tertiles of distribution in the cohort. Treatment response was assessed by achieving DAS28 ESR remission (REM) at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years from the initiation of the first DMARD. The occurrence of severe adverse events (SAE) was measured by the occurrence of severe infection, hospitalization, or death during the 10-year follow-up. The association between patient’s characteristics and achievement of REM and occurrence of SAE were tested in univariate analysis. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate associations between polypharmacy and REM at 1 year, 5 years and 10 years (we used baseline polypharmacy for the 1-year analysis and five years polypharmacy for the 5- and 10-years analyses). Multivariate adjustment was made for age, sex, BMI, duration of disease, initial DAS28 ESR, initial HAQ, smoking status, rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI).Results:The proportion of patients who achieved REM one year after the initiation of the first DMARD was 32.1% in the polypharmacy according to the median group (patients taken ≥2 medication) versus 67.9% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.07). At 5 years after the first DMARD, the proportion of patients with REM was 45.0% in the polypharmacy group versus 56.3% in the non-polypharmacy group (p=0.03). At 10 years the proportion of patients with REM was 32.5% in the polypharmacy group versus 67.5% (p=0.06). Patients who take greater or equal to 2 medications had a 40% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.60 [0.38-0.94] p = 0.03) at 5 years from the first DMARD (if RDCI index was not included in the model). At 10 years, patients receiving multiple medications had a 43% lower probability of achieving REM (OR = 0.57 [0.34-0.94] p = 0.02). SAE incidence was 61 per 1000 patient-years. For patients who developed SAE all causes 71.4% where in the polypharmacy group versus 57.8% were in the non-polypharmacy group (p = 0.03; univariate analysis). These results are no longer significant after adjustment for comorbidities indices.Conclusion:In this early RA cohort, polypharmacy is associated with a poorer treatment response and increased risk of adverse events. Polypharmacy may represent a good substitute of comorbidities for epidemiological studies.Acknowledgements:We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) who did expert monitoring and data management and all theinvestigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).The work reported on in the manuscript did not benefit from any financial support. The ESPOIR cohort is sponsored by the French Society for Rheumatology. An unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) was allocated for the first 5 years. Two additional grants from INSERM were obtained to support part of the biological database. Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly and more recently Fresenius and Biogen also supported the ESPOIR cohort.Disclosure of Interests:Soraya Benamar: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Claire Daien Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Abivax, BMS, MSD, Roche, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis et UCB, Anne-Christine Rat Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai., Jacques Morel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Médac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1463.2-1464
Author(s):  
S. Bayat ◽  
K. Tascilar ◽  
V. Kaufmann ◽  
A. Kleyer ◽  
D. Simon ◽  
...  

Background:Recent developments of targeted treatments such as targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) increase the chances of a sustained low disease activity (LDA) or remission state for patients suffering rheumatoid arthritis (RA). tsDMARDs such as baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of the Janus Kinases (JAK1/JAK2) was recently approved for the treatment of RA with an inadequate response to conventional (cDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) therapy. (1, 2).Objectives:Aim of this study is to analyze the effect of baricitinb on disease activity (DAS28, LDA) in patients with RA in real life, to analyze drug persistance and associate these effects with various baseline characteristics.Methods:All RA patients were seen in our outpatient clinic. If a patient was switched to a baricitinib due to medical reasons, these patients were included in our prospective, observational study which started in April 2017. Clinical scores (SJC/TJC 76/78), composite scores (DAS28), PROs (HAQ-DI; RAID; FACIT), safety parameters (not reported in this abstract) as well as laboratory biomarkers were collected at each visit every three months. Linear mixed effects models for repeated measurements were used to analyze the time course of disease activity, patient reported outcomes and laboratory results. We estimated the probabilities of continued baricitinib treatment and the probabilities of LDA and remission by DAS-28 as well as Boolean remission up to one year using survival analysis and explored their association with disease characteristics using multivariable Cox regression. All patients gave informed consent. The study is approved by the local ethics.Results:95 patients were included and 85 analyzed with available follow-up data until November 2019. Demographics are shown in table 1. Mean follow-up duration after starting baricitinib was 49.3 (28.9) weeks. 51 patients (60%) were on monotherapy. Baricitinib survival (95%CI) was 82% (73% to 91%) at one year. Cumulative number (%probability, 95%CI) of patients that attained DAS-28 LDA at least once up to one year was 67 (92%, 80% to 97%) and the number of patients attaining DAS-28 and Boolean remission were 31 (50%, 34% to 61%) and 12(20%, 9% to 30%) respectively. Median time to DAS-28 LDA was 16 weeks (Figure 1). Cox regression analyses did not show any sufficiently precise association of remission or LDA with age, gender, seropositivity, disease duration, concomitant DMARD use and number of previous bDMARDs. Increasing number of previous bDMARDs was associated with poor baricitinib survival (HR=1.5, 95%CI 1.1 to 2.2) while this association was not robust to adjustment for baseline disease activity. Favorable changes were observed in tender and swollen joint counts, pain-VAS, patient and physician disease assessment scores, RAID, FACIT and the acute phase response.Conclusion:In this prospective observational study, we observed high rates of LDA and DAS-28 remission and significant improvements in disease activity and patient reported outcome measurements over time.References:[1]Keystone EC, Taylor PC, Drescher E, Schlichting DE, Beattie SD, Berclaz PY, et al. Safety and efficacy of baricitinib at 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2015 Feb;74(2):333-40.[2]Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zamani O, Ludivico C, Krogulec M, Xie L, et al. Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis. The New England journal of medicine. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1243-52.Figure 1.Cumulative probability of low disease activity or remission under treatment with baricitinib.Disclosure of Interests:Sara Bayat Speakers bureau: Novartis, Koray Tascilar: None declared, Veronica Kaufmann: None declared, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, David Simon Grant/research support from: Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis, Fabian Hartmann: None declared, Susanne Adam: None declared, Axel Hueber Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, EIT Health, EU-IMI, DFG, Universität Erlangen (EFI), Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 327.1-328
Author(s):  
A. Kavanaugh ◽  
M. H. Buch ◽  
B. Combe ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
...  

Background:The primary treatment goal for patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a state of sustained clinical remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA).1,2Objectives:To assess the long-term sustainability of responses to upadacitinib (UPA), a JAK inhibitor, with or without background csDMARD(s) in pts with RA.Methods:Data are from two phase 3 randomized, controlled trials of UPA in RA pts with roughly similar baseline disease characteristics: SELECT-NEXT enrolled pts with an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARD(s) on background stable csDMARD(s) receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks (wks); SELECT-MONOTHERAPY enrolled methotrexate (MTX)-IR pts receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy or blinded MTX for 14 wks. After 12/14 wks, pts could enter a blinded long-term extension and receive UPA 15 mg or 30 mg for up to 5 years. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI≤10; SDAI≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence before Wk 84; additionally, these measures were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first occurrence for the total number of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg. Sustainability of response was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier only for those pts who achieved REM/LDA and was defined as time to the earliest date of losing response at two consecutive visits or discontinuation of study drug. The predictive ability of time to clinical REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (for reference, an index ~ 0.5, indicates no ability to predict; an index of 1 or -1 would be a perfect prediction). The last follow up dates were 22 March, 2018 (SELECT-NEXT) and 25 May, 2019 (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY), when all pts had reached the Wk 84 visit.Results:Through Wk 84, the percent of treated pts achieving CDAI REM/LDA was 43%/79% for those receiving UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) (SELECT-NEXT) and 37%/76% for those receiving UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY). 35%/25% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 27%/23% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) achieved sustained CDAI REM through 6/12 months after the first occurrence. 64%/56% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 61%/56% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) achieved sustained CDAI LDA through 6/12 months after the first occurrence (Figure 1). Time to initial clinical REM/LDA did not appear to be associated with sustained disease control. The c-indices (95%CI) for CDAI REM in the UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) groups were 0.541 (0.47, 0.62) and 0.568 (0.49, 0.65) and that of LDA were 0.521 (0.46, 0.58) and 0.498 (0.43, 0.56), respectively. Through last follow-up visit, 55% of pts receiving UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 62% of pts receiving UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) remained in CDAI REM while 72% and 70% of pts remained in CDAI LDA, respectively (Figure 2). Similar results were observed across other disease activity measures (SDAI REM/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2).Conclusion:More than a quarter and more than a half of pts with RA and prior IR to csDMARD(s) receiving UPA with or without background csDMARD therapy achieved sustained clinical REM and LDA, respectively, across disease activity measures. Sustainability of responses appeared comparable among pts receiving UPA with or without background csDMARDs through up to 84 wks.References:[1]EULAR: Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960–977.[2]ACR: Singh et al. Arthritis & Rheumatology Vol. 68, No. 1, January 2016, pp 1–26.Disclosure of Interests: :Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Maya H Buch Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Pfizer; AbbVie; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck-Serono; Sandoz; and Sanofi, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 645.2-646
Author(s):  
A. Kivitz ◽  
Y. Tanaka ◽  
S. Lee ◽  
L. Ye ◽  
H. Hu ◽  
...  

Background:In the FINCH 1 study, filgotinib (FIL)—an oral, potent, selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor—in combination with methotrexate (MTX) provided significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients (pts) with inadequate response to MTX.1While EULAR guidelines recommend a treat-to-target approach focusing on reducing inflammation to prevent joint damage, physical disability, and mortality, pts consider control of pain and fatigue, along with maintenance of physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to be important aspects for their care.2,3Objectives:To evaluate the rate and magnitude of change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from FINCH 1.Methods:In the FINCH 1 study (NCT02889796), pts with active RA received oral FIL 200 mg + MTX, FIL 100 mg + MTX, PBO + MTX, or subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX for up to 52 weeks (W); pts receiving PBO at W24 were rerandomised 1:1 to FIL 100 or 200 mg. PROs included the HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale, SF-36, and FACIT-Fatigue questionnaire. The change from baseline (CFB) at each time point was assessed up to W52 for each treatment group. The mixed-effects model for repeated measures was used to compare each FIL group with PBO for the CFB at each time point through W24. The logistic regression model was used to compare each FIL group with PBO for the proportion of pts achieving the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥0.22 reduction in CFB in HAQ-DI at each time point through W24.Results:Of 1755 pts randomised and treated (475 FIL 200 mg + MTX; 480 FIL 100 mg + MTX; 325 ADA + MTX; and 475 PBO + MTX), 1417 (80.7%) received study drug through W52. As early as W2 through W24, pts receiving either dose of FIL experienced nominally significantly greater (p <0.001) CFB in HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale than those receiving PBO; CFB improvements were maintained through W52 (Fig 1A, B). At W2, compared with PBO (40.2%), a nominally significantly greater proportion of pts achieved the HAQ-DI MCID in both the FIL 200 (52.5%; p <0.001) and 100 mg (46.7%; p = 0.043) groups. This benefit vs PBO was maintained up to W24 and the proportion of pts who achieved a HAQ-DI reduction of ≥0.22 remained ≥75.8% in the FIL 200 mg group and ≥71.5% in the FIL 100 mg group from W12 through W52. FIL provided nominally significantly greater improvement in HRQoL vs PBO at W4 and W12 for both the CFB of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p <0.001) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) (p ≤0.006); nominal significance was also seen at W24 for CFB of SF-36 PCS (Fig 2A, B). By W4, pts receiving either dose of FIL reported a nominally significantly greater mean CFB in FACIT-Fatigue scores vs PBO (p <0.001); significance was maintained through W24 and improvement in reported fatigue continued through W52 in the FIL groups (Fig 2C). In general, CFB for HAQ-DI, VAS pain scale, and FACIT-Fatigue observed for the FIL groups was higher or comparable to ADA at various time points (Fig 1, 2).Conclusion:Both doses of FIL provided rapid and sustained improvements in functional status, pain, HRQoL, and fatigue compared with PBO for pts with RA and inadequate response to MTX throughout the 52-week period.References:[1]Combe BG, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2019;78 (Suppl 2):A77.[2]Fautrel B, et al.Rheumatol Int.2018;38:935–47.[3]Smolen JS, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2017;76:960–77.Disclosure of Interests:Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Susan Lee Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Lei Ye Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Hao Hu Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 478.2-479
Author(s):  
L. Zhang ◽  
C. van der Tog ◽  
A. den Broeder ◽  
T. Mellors ◽  
E. Connolly-Strong ◽  
...  

Background:Following RA treatment recommendations, most people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) begin targeted therapy with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), even though inadequate response to TNFi therapies is widespread. Treatment changes from one medication to the next are currently fueled by disease-activity measures and eventually result in disease control for most patients; however, this “trial-and-error” approach wastes precious time on ineffective treatments. A delay in reaching treat-to-target goals has a negative effect on patient burden and, possibly, disease progression.1 Useful predictors for TNFi response have been challenging to identify but a specific molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test was shown to be predictive for inadequate response to TNFi therapies.2 The impact of such identification has the potential to result in improved patient outcomes, but further validation would be welcome, especially for response criteria other than ACR50, and in a stringent treat-to-target setting with lower baseline disease activity.Objectives:To validate the predictive value of the MSRC test in identifying those patients who do not meet EULAR good response criteria after 6 months of TNFi treatment.Methods:Data from a prospective cohort study conducted in the Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, the Netherlands) of RA patients who started adalimumab or etanercept TNFi as their first biologic were included.3 Baseline RNA samples and clinical assessments were used to identify patients who had a molecular signature1 of non-response to TNFi therapy. Outcomes were calculated at six months using DAS28-CRP-based EULAR good response, and high and low confidence responders and non-responders were identified using Monte Carlo simulation with 2,000 repeats and 70% precision cut off. Outcome measurements were blinded for test results. Treatment switch before 6 months was imputed as non-response. Odds ratios and area under the ROC curve (AUC) assessments were used to evaluate the ability of the MSRC test to predict inadequate response at 6 months against EULAR good response criteria.Results:A total of 68 out of 88 RA patients were identified to have a high-confidence response status and were included in analyses (Table 1). EULAR good response was observed in 45.5% (31/68) of patients. Patients were stratified according to detection of a molecular signature of non-response with an AUC of 0.61. The odds that a patient with the molecular signature of non-response at baseline failed to achieve a EULAR good response at 6 months was four times greater than that of a patient lacking the molecular signature (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-13.3).Table 1.Patient demographicsCharacteristicRA patients (N = 68)Age, median (SD)57 (11)Female, n (%)43 (63.2)CCP positive, n (%)34 (50.0)RF positive, n (%)38 (55.9)Prescribed adalimumab at baseline, n (%)11 (16.2)Prescribed etanercept at baseline, n (%)57 (83.8)Conclusion:In this validation study, the molecular signature of non-response identified patients who did not fulfill the EULAR good response criteria to TNFi therapies. The patient selection process for this study had limitations; additional analysis in an alternative cohort would further verify the performance of the MSRC test. Nevertheless, the test, previously validated for ACR50, now has been validated using EULAR good response in a treat-to-target setting.References:[1]Schipper LG et al, Time to achieve remission determines time to be in remission. Arthritis Res Ther 201[2]Mellors T, et al. Clinical Validation of a Blood-Based Predictive Test for Stratification of Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. Network and Systems Medicine 2020[3]Tweehuysen L et al. Predictive value of ex-vivo drug-inhibited cytokine production for clinical response to biologic DMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2019Disclosure of Interests:Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Celeste van der Tog: None declared, Alfons den Broeder Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Ted Mellors Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Erin Connolly-Strong Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Johanna Withers Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Alex Jones Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Viatcheslav Akmaev Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 651.1-652
Author(s):  
R. Van Vollenhoven ◽  
A. Ostor ◽  
E. Mysler ◽  
N. Damjanov ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
...  

Background:In Phase 3 trials, upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK1-selective inhibitor, has been assessed as monotherapy vs MTX (SELECT-EARLY1) and in combination with MTX vs adalimumab + MTX (ADA; SELECT-COMPARE2) in RA pts who were MTX naïve or with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR), respectively.Objectives:In this analysis we assessed individual and composite measures of disease activity in SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-COMPARE.Methods:In SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve pts received UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy once daily (QD), or MTX monotherapy, for 12 wks. In SELECT-COMPARE, MTX-IR pts on stable background MTX received UPA 15 mg QD, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every 2 wks for 12 wks. For this analysis, responses at Wk 12 were defined as ≥50% improvement in the 7 components of the ACR response criteria. Among ACR50 responders, the proportions of pts with ≥50% improvement in all 7 components of the ACR criteria was assessed. The proportion of pts achieving TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 was also determined. All analyses were based on observed data without imputation.Results:947 pts were randomized in SELECT-EARLY, and 1629 pts in SELECT-COMPARE. Mean time since RA diagnosis was 2.7 years in SELECT-EARLY (median 6 months) and 8.2 years in SELECT-COMPARE; mean DAS28(CRP) was 5.9 and 5.8, respectively. In SELECT-EARLY, significantly more MTX-naïve pts receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy achieved ≥50% improvements in all ACR components at Wk 12 compared with MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b). In SELECT-COMPARE, significantly more MTX-IR pts on UPA 15 mg + MTX achieved ≥50% improvement in the ACR components vs PBO (all components) and ADA + MTX (all components except SJC and PhGA). Among pts with ACR50 responses at Wk 12, approximately half of the MTX-naïve pts on UPA 15 mg and 30 mg in SELECT-EARLY had ≥50% improvements in all 5 remaining ACR components (pain, PtGA, PhGA, HAQ-DI, hsCRP) compared with 28% with MTX. Corresponding proportions in MTX-IR pts in SELECT-COMPARE were 34% for UPA 15 mg + MTX, 28% for ADA + MTX, and 17% for PBO. UPA treatment also significantly increased the proportions of pts achieving both TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 vs PBO or MTX, and SJC66=0 vs ADA + MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b).Conclusion:In MTX-naïve and MTX-IR pts, treatment responses at 12 wks occurred in significantly higher proportions of pts receiving UPA monotherapy vs MTX and UPA + MTX vs PBO for all 7 components of the ACR response criteria, and for 5 of 7 ACR components for UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX. Favorable outcomes with UPA treatment were evident both in composite and individual parameters.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 891[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 890Disclosure of Interests:Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Nemanja Damjanov Grant/research support from: from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Bechman ◽  
Kapil Halai ◽  
Sam Norton ◽  
Andrew P Cope ◽  
Kimme L Hyrich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of infection. Most attention has been given to serious infections, but these are the tip of the iceberg. Non-serious infections (NSI) are far more frequent, and although not life-threatening, have potential to impact treatment outcomes (drug survival) and quality of life. Our objective was to describe frequency of NSI and compare incidence of NSI by biologic drug within the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR-RA). Methods The BSRBR-RA is a prospective observational cohort study. NSI was identified as not requiring hospitalisation, intravenous therapy or leading to disability or death. Infections were captured from clinician questionnaires and patient diaries. Individuals were considered ‘at risk’ from the date of commencing biologic treatment for 3 years. Drug exposure was defined by agent; TNF inhibitor, IL-6 inhibitor, anti-CD20 or csDMARD only. To account for a high frequency of events, a multiple-failure Cox model was used. Multivariable adjustment included age, gender, DAS28-ESR, HAQ-DI, disease duration, smoking, steroid usage, year recruited to BSRBR-RA, line of biologic therapy and cumulative infection number. Results There were 17,304 NSI in 10,099 patients, with an event rate of 27.0 per year (95% CI 26.6 to 27.4). Increasing age, female gender, comorbidity burden, corticosteroid therapy, DAS28 and HAQ-DI were associated with an increased risk of NSI. The rate of NSI was numerically lowest with csDMARDs. Compared to TNFi, IL-6 inhibitor had a higher risk of NSI, whilst the csDMARD cohort had a lower risk. Between the TNFi agents, adalimumab had a higher risk than etanercept (Table 1). Conclusion These results confirm that NSI is a frequent occurrence for patients, which historically has received little attention in research literature. The data suggest biologics increase the risk of NSI, especially IL-6 inhibition. Whilst unmeasured confounding must be considered, the magnitude of effects are large and it seems likely that a causal link between targeted immunosuppression and NSI risk exists. Further research is needed to understand the impact of NSI on clinical outcomes including drug survival and quality of life. Disclosures K. Bechman: None. K. Halai: None. S. Norton: None. A.P. Cope: None. K.L. Hyrich: Honoraria; AbbVie paid to the institution and grant income from Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb for activities outside of this work. J.B. Galloway: Honoraria; for speaking or attending conferences from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer and Union Chimique Belge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document