scholarly journals AB0337 TOFACITINIB MONOTHERAPY OR COMBINED WITH METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SHOW SIMILAR RETENTION OVER FOUR YEARS. REPORT FROM RHUMADATA ®

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1467.1-1467
Author(s):  
D. Choquette ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
L. Choquette Sauvageau ◽  
I. Ferdinand ◽  
B. Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
P Value ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Medication Discontinuation ◽  
Kaplan Meier

Background:Since the introduction of biologic agents around the turn of the century, the scientific evidence shows that the majority of agents, independent of the therapeutic target, have a better outcome when used in combination with methotrexate (MTX). In 2014, tofacitinib (TOFA), an agent targeting Janus kinase 1 and 3, has reached the Canadian market with data showing that the combination with MTX may not be necessary [1,2].Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and retention rate of TOFA in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods:Two cohorts of patients prescribed TOFA was created. The first cohort was formed of patients who were receiving MTX concomitantly with TOFA (COMBO) and the other of patients using TOFA in monotherapy (MONO). MONO patients either never use MTX or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at most 20% of the time they were on TOFA. COMBO patients received MTX at the time of TOFA initiation or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at least 80% of the time. For all those patients, baseline demographic data definitions. Disease activity score and HAQ-DI were compared from the initiation of TOFA to the last visit. Time to medication discontinuation was extracted, and survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier calculation for MONO and COMBO cohorts.Results:Overall, 194 patients were selected. Most were women (83%) on average younger than the men (men: 62.6 ± 11.0 years vs. women: 56.9 ± 12.1 years, p-value=0.0130). The patient’s assessments of global disease activity, pain and fatigue were respectively 5.0 ± 2.7, 5.2 ± 2.9, 5.1 ± 3.1 in the COMBO group and 6.2 ± 2.5, 6.5 ± 2.6, 6.3 ± 2.8 in the MONO group all differences being significant across groups. HAQ-DI at treatment initiation was 1.3 ± 0.7 and 1.5 ± 0.7 in the COMBO and MONO groups, respectively, p-value=0.0858. Similarly, the SDAI score at treatment initiation was 23.9 ± 9.4 and 25.2 ± 11.5, p-value=0.5546. Average changes in SDAI were -13.4 ± 15.5 (COMBO) and -8.9 ± 13.5 (MONO), p-value=0.1515, and changes in HAQ -0.21 ± 0.63 and -0.26 ± 0.74, p-value 0.6112. At treatment initiation, DAS28(4)ESR were 4.4 ± 1.4 (COMBO) and 4.6 ± 1.3 (MONO), p-value 0.5815, with respective average changes of -1.06 ± 2.07 and -0.70 ± 1.96, p-value=0.2852. The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the COMBO and MONO retention curves were not statistically different (log-rank p-value=0.9318).Conclusion:Sustainability of TOFA in MONO or COMBO are not statistically different as are the changes in DAS28(4)ESR and SDAI. Despite this result, some patients may still benefit from combination with MTX.References:[1]Product Monograph - XELJANZ ® (tofacitinib) tablets for oral administration Initial U.S. Approval: 2012.[2] Reed GW, Gerber RA, Shan Y, et al. Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors as Monotherapy and Combination Therapy for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 9].Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(4):573–586. doi:10.1007/s40744-019-00177-4.Disclosure of Interests:Denis Choquette Grant/research support from: Rhumadata is supported by grants from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Consultant of: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, 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, Loïc Choquette Sauvageau: None declared, Isabelle Ferdinand Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Frédéric Massicotte Consultant of: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Janssen, Jean-Pierre Pelletier Shareholder of: ArthroLab Inc., Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica, Speakers bureau: TRB Chemedica and Mylan, Jean-Pierre Raynauld Consultant of: ArthroLab Inc., Marie-Anaïs Rémillard Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Diane Sauvageau: None declared, Édith Villeneuve Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme,UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Louis Coupal: None declared

scholarly journals POS0305 PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS TREAT-TO-TARGET, ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND STATED TREATMENT GOALS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING ACROSS EUROPE

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
B. Fautrel ◽  
R. Caporali ◽  
E. Holdsworth ◽  
B. Donaghy ◽  
M. Khalid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
High Disease Activity ◽  
Clinical State ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Treatment Goals ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Reduction Of Pain

Background:The principles of treat to target (T2T) include defining an appropriate treatment target, assessed at pre-defined intervals, with a commitment to changing therapeutic approach if the target is not met (1). T2T is recommended as a key strategy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:To explore attitudes towards T2T, its implementation and stated treatment goals among physicians and their patients with RA.Methods:The Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™ was a large, quantitative, point-in-time survey conducted amongst rheumatologists (n=296) and their consulting patients with RA (n=3042) in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) between Q4 2019–Q3 2020. Physicians were recruited via publicly available lists, completing an online survey and medical record extraction for their next 10–12 consecutive patients. The same patients were invited to voluntarily complete a self-report questionnaire (n=1098, 36% response), collecting data on attitudes towards T2T and treatment goals.Results:Physicians reported that 76% of patients were in remission (DAS28: <2.6) or had low disease activity (DAS28: 2.6 – 3.2), and 24% had moderate-high disease activity (DAS28: >3.2). Patient mean age was 53.0 years (SD 14.0), mean time since diagnosis was 7.2 years (SD 7.2). The proportion of patients currently receiving an advanced therapy (AT; defined as biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD) was 68%, of whom 70% were on a first line AT. No difference was observed between disease activity groups.In the physician survey, 86% of physicians stated they followed T2T principals in at least some of their RA patients, and would utilize a T2T approach in RA patients with moderate-high disease activity (61%), the most uncontrolled patients (37%) and those who do not respond well to initial therapy (34%). In this sample of real-world RA patients, 66% were reported by physicians to be on a T2T plan at the time of data collection. The most common physician-reported targets were remission (DAS28: <2.6) (75%), improvement of quality of life (QoL) (41%) and reduction of pain (31%), with 85% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most stated reasons for not implementing T2T was physician preference not to adjust current treatment (34%), patient preference not to adjust current treatment (23%), and there are no achievable goals for this patient (16%).Overall, 29% of patients reported they were involved in setting their T2T goals, while 34% stated their T2T goals were set by their physicians only, and 29% perceived no T2T goal had been set (n=620). The most common overall T2T goals from the patient perspective were remission (61%), controlling symptoms (41%), and reducing impact on QoL (34%). Of those patients who acknowledged a T2T goal had been set (n=407), 77% reported their T2T goal was fully or partially achieved.Of 719 patients who had moderate-high disease activity, 57% were on a T2T plan, with 46% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most common physician-stated reason for not implementing T2T was a lack of achievable targets (29%).Conclusion:Rheumatologists in this study reported a strong belief in T2T. The most common physician-set T2T goals were remission, improvement of QoL and reduction of pain, corresponding with T2T goals as reported by patients. However, a third of patients in this cohort were not aware of a defined T2T objective in their management, which may be a result of a perceived lack of achievable goals by physicians. It may be desirable to promote more patient involvement in defining achievable targets amongst those with moderate-high disease activity who despite best efforts may not reach a clinical state of remission. Further research is needed to identify and understand goals important to RA patients.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R. Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis - are we there yet? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15(3):180-6.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Galapagos NV, Belgium.Medical writing support was provided by Gary Sidgwick, PhD (Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK) and editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), both funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Fautrel Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi, Samsung Bioepis, MSD, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Bethany Donaghy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Mona Khalid Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mark Moore Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Speakers bureau: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Paid instructor for: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Consultant of: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Grant/research support from: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Employee of: Gilead Sciences, and previously Sanofi and AstraZeneca, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Yves Piette Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Grünenthal and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Mylan and UCB, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grunenthal, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Jasper Broen Shareholder of: Pharming Group, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly

THU0399 HOW DO TNF-ALPHA-INHIBITORS IN MEDICAL HISTORY AFFECT PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES AND RETENTION IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS PATIENTS TREATED WITH SECUKINUMAB IN REAL WORLD? - GERMAN AQUILA STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 436-437
Author(s):  
U. Kiltz ◽  
J. Brandt-Juergens ◽  
P. Kästner ◽  
E. Riechers ◽  
D. Peterlik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Medical History ◽  
Physical Functioning ◽  
Real World ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Kaplan Meier

Background:Secukinumab (SEC), a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin 17A, is approved for treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, there is lack of real-world evidence on SEC treatment outcomes, disease activity, physical functioning and on its retention, especially in anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) naïve patients and patients pretreated with different anti-TNFs in medical history.1Objectives:The aim of this interim analysis is to evaluate SEC treatment outcomes on disease activity, physical functioning and retention rates in AS patients stratified by number of anti-TNFs (naive, 1 or ≥2) in medical history.Methods:AQUILA is an ongoing, multi-center, non-interventional study. AS and psoriatic arthritis patients treated with SEC in daily practice are enrolled and observed from baseline (BL, d0 or d1 of study start) up to week 52 according to clinical routine. Real-world effectiveness of SEC was assessed prospectively and analyzed as observed. Here, we report interim results of SEC effectiveness on different treatment outcomes in AS patients by means of validated questionnaires such as patient´s global assessment (PGA), Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis Health Index (ASAS-HI). In addition, retention rates (time from study inclusion until premature SEC treatment discontinuation) were assessed through Kaplan-Meier plots. This interim analysis focuses onanti-TNF naïveand AS patients treated with1 anti-TNFor≥2 anti-TNFsin medical history. Wilcoxon tests were conducted to show significant differences between the subgroups.Results:At BL, 311 AS patients were included; 72 (23.2%) of them received SEC already for more than 1 day up to more than 6 months before BL. Most AS patients were anti-TNF-experienced (71.1%): 82 (26.4%) and 139 (44.7%) AS patients had 1 or ≥2 prior anti-TNF treatments, respectively. BL scores for PGA, BASDAI and ASAS-HI were similar between the different anti-TNF subgroups. Constant improvement was shown in all parameters from BL up to week 52, irrespective of prior anti-TNF treatment (PGA-anti-TNF naïve: 5.9 to 3.5, PGA-1 anti-TNF:6.1 to 4.2 and PGA-≥2 anti-TNFs:6.7 to 5.1; BASDAI-anti-TNF naïve: 5.3 to 3.4, BASDAI-1 anti-TNF:5.5 to 3.7 and BASDAI-≥2 anti-TNFs:5.7 to 4.7). However, overall better improvement was observed inanti-TNF naïvepatients, as seen by the example of ASAS-HI (Fig. 1). Between 30% and 40% of patients prematurely discontinued SEC treatment in the subgroups1 anti-TNFand≥2 anti-TNFs, respectively, while only about 20% did so in theanti-TNF naïveAS patients (Fig. 2).Conclusion:SEC has shown to improve disease activity, physical functioning and QoL in anti-TNF-naïve and pretreated AS patients in a real-world setting. The benefits of SEC were numerically more distinct in anti-TNF-naïve patients. Moreover, SEC demonstrated high retention rate, particularly in anti-TNF-naïve patients, thereby confirming previously reported real-world data on SEC from EuroSpA research collaboration network.2References:[1]Glintborg B, et al, Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1149-55; 2. Michelsen B, et al, Arthritis Rheumatol 2019:71(suppl10) #1822Disclosure of Interests:Uta Kiltz Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly and Company, Grünenthal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Jan Brandt-Juergens: None declared, Peter Kästner Consultant of: Chugai, Novartis, Elke Riechers Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Chugai, Novartis, UCB, Daniel Peterlik Employee of: Novartis Pharma GmbH, Hans-Peter Tony Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Chugai, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SanofiFigure 1.Change of health in AS patients treated with SEC stratified by anti-TNF pretreatmentFigure 2.SEC treatment retention depending on anti-TNF pretreatment (Kaplan-Meier plot)

THU0201 LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF UPADACITINIB OR ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RESULTS AT 72 WEEKS FROM THE SELECT-COMPARE STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 323-323
Author(s):  
R. Fleischmann ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
J. Enejosa ◽  
E. Mysler ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Hepatic Disorder ◽  
Compare Study

Background:In the SELECT-COMPARE study in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus Kinase (JAK) 1-selective inhibitor, showed significant improvements in treatment of signs and symptoms when compared to placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) up to 48 weeks.1Objectives:To report safety and efficacy of UPA vs ADA up to 72 weeks in patients with RA from the ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of SELECT-COMPARE.Methods:Patients were randomized to once daily (QD) UPA 15 mg, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week, with all patients continuing background MTX. The study was double-blind for 48 weeks. Between Weeks 14-26, patients were rescued (from PBO to UPA, UPA to ADA, or ADA to UPA) if there was <20% improvement in tender/swollen joint count at Weeks 14/18/22 or if Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was >10 at Week 26; all PBO patients who were not rescued were switched to UPA at Week 26. Patients continued UPA or ADA in a blinded manner until the last patient completed the Week 48 visit; patients received open-label treatment thereafter. Study visits occurred at Week 60, 72, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient years (PY) were summarized up to December 26, 2018. Efficacy was analyzed by randomized group.Results:In total, 651, 651 and 327 patients were randomized at baseline to receive UPA, PBO, and ADA, respectively. Subsequently, 252 patients were switched from UPA to ADA, 159 were switched from ADA to UPA, and all PBO patients were switched to UPA. 1403 patients entered the LTE at Week 48 (UPA: 1091 [565 switched from PBO; 66 rescued from ADA; 460 on continued UPA]; ADA: 312 [110 rescued from UPA; 202 on continued ADA]). The cumulative exposures were 1396.7 and 515.1 PYs for UPA and ADA, respectively. UPA + MTX was generally well-tolerated as assessed by the frequency of AEs, including serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation of study drug, and AEs of special interest ([AESIs] including serious and opportunistic infections, malignancy, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events or venous thromboembolism; Figure 1). The event rates of AESIs were generally comparable between UPA + MTX and ADA + MTX, except for herpes zoster, lymphopenia, hepatic disorder, and CPK elevation, which were numerically higher with UPA + MTX. At both Weeks 60 and 72, significantly greater proportions of patient receiving UPA + MTX achieved ACR20/50/70 (P ≤.01/.001/.001), low disease activity (P ≤.001) and remission (P ≤.001) compared to those receiving ADA + MTX; Figure 2). Similarly, improvements in pain and function were significantly greater in the UPA vs ADA group through Week 72 (P ≤.01).Conclusion:The safety profile for UPA + MTX was consistent with that reported previously and with the integrated Phase 3 safety analysis.1,2UPA + MTX maintained significantly higher levels of clinical response, including remission compared to ADA + MTX through Week 72.References:[1]Fleischmann R, et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.2019;78:744-745.[2]Cohen SB, et al. Thu0167.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2019;78:357.Disclosure of Interests: :Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., 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, 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, Patrick Durez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Jerzy Swierkot Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

scholarly journals POS0445 PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT REPORTED EFFECTIVENESS OUTCOMES ARE SIMILAR IN TOFACITINIB AND TNF INHIBITORS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS: DATA FROM A RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS REGISTRY IN CANADA

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 452.1-452
Author(s):  
M. Movahedi ◽  
A. Cesta ◽  
X. Li ◽  
E. Keystone ◽  
C. Bombardier
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anxiety Depression

Background:Tofacitinib (TOFA) is an oral, small molecule drug used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment as an alternative option to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:We aimed to evaluate physician and patient reported effectivness outcomes in TNFi compared to TOFA, using real-world data from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).Methods:RA patients enrolled in the OBRI initiating their TOFA or TNFi (Adalimumab, Certolizumab, Etanercept, Golimumab, Infliximab, and Biosimilars) between 1st June 2014 (TOFA approval date in Canada) and 31st Dec 2019 were included. Patients were required to have physician and patient reported effectivness outcomes data available at treatment initiation and 6-month (± 2 months) follow-up. These included clinical disease activity index (CDAI), rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI), HAQ-DI, sleep problem, and anxiety/depression scores. Multiple imputation (Imputation Chained Equation, N=20) was used to deal with missing data for covaraites at treatment initiation. To deal with confounding by indication, we estimated propensity scores for covariates with an absolute standard difference greater than 0.1 between the two treatment groups.Results:A total of 419 patients were included. Of those, 226 were initiating a TNFi and 193 TOFA, and had a mean (SD) disease duration of 8.0 (8.7) and 12.6 (9.6) years, respectively. In the TNFi group, 81.9% were female and mean age (SD) at treatment initiation was 56.6 (13.4) years. In the TOFA group, 85% were female and mean (SD) age at treatment initiation was 60.3 (11.2) years. The TNFi group was less likely to have prior biologic use (21.7%) compared to the TOFA group (67.9%). At treatment initiation, physical function measured by HAQ-DI was significantly lower in TNFi compared to the TOFA group (1.2 vs.1.4).The rate of CDAI LDA/remission at 6 months was 36.7% and 33.2% in TNFi and TOFA group, respectively. The generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) adjusting for propensity score quantile, showed that there was no significant difference in CDAI LDA/remission (ORs: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.51, 1.43), RADAI (coefficient: 0.48, 95% CI: -0.18, 1.14), HAQ-DI (coefficient: -0.01, 95% CI: -0.18, 0.16), sleep problems (coefficient: -0.25, 95% CI: -0.95, 0.45), and anxiety/depression scores (coefficient: 0.12, 95% CI: -0.35, 0.58) between the two treatment groups (TOFA used as reference).Conclusion:In this real-world data study, we found that, physician and patient reported effectivness outcomes are similar in the TNFi and TOFA groups 6 months after treatment initiation in patients with RA.Disclosure of Interests:Mohammad Movahedi: None declared, Angela Cesta: None declared, Xiuying Li: None declared, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, PuraPharm. Speaker Honoraria Agreements: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis. Consulting Agreements/Advisory Board Membership: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis, Claire Bombardier Grant/research support from: OBRI was funded by peer reviewed grants from CIHR (Canadian Institute for Health Research), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), Canadian Arthritis Network (CAN) and unrestricted grants from: Abbvie, Amgen, Aurora, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, & UCB. Dr. Bombardier held a Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Transfer for Musculoskeletal Care and a Pfizer Research Chair in Rheumatology

scholarly journals FRI0567 CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF PROMIS SHORT FORM AND PROFILE-29 T-SCORES WITH SF-36 IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS TREATED FOR 1 YEAR: RESULTS FROM A REAL‑WORLD EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY IN THE UNITED STATES

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 886.2-886
Author(s):  
C. Bingham ◽  
S. Kafka ◽  
S. Black ◽  
S. Xu ◽  
W. Langholff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Sleep Disturbance ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Component Scores

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

scholarly journals AB0229 A NATIONAL, MULTICENTER, SECONDARY DATA USE STUDY EVALUATING EFFICACY AND RETENTION OF FIRST-LINE BIOLOGIC TREATMENT WITH TOCILIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN REAL-LIFE SETTING FROM TURKBIO REGISTRY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1140-1141
Author(s):  
A. Yazici ◽  
Ö. Özdemir Işik ◽  
E. Dalkiliç ◽  
S. S. Koca ◽  
Y. Pehlivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
First Line ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Biologic Treatment ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background:Tocilizumab (TCZ) is a human anti-interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antibody approved in Turkey for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:In this study our purpose was to describe the disease activity, quality of life (QoL), and retention rate in RA patients who were prescribed TCZ as first-line biologic treatment in a real-world setting.Methods:Anonymized patient registry of TURKBIO was used based in a national, multicenter, and retrospective context. We conducted a search in the registry between years 2013 and 2020 and included adult RA patients who were prescribed with TCZ as their first-line biologic treatment with a post-TCZ follow-up of at least 6 months. CDAI, DAS28-(ESR), and HAQ-DI scores in 6, 12, and 24 months were obtained. Pairwise comparison was carried out for survey scores across baseline and timepoints. Subgroup analysis for route of TCZ administration was performed. EULAR response criteria were used for response evaluation. Retention of TCZ was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis.Results:Overall,130 patients with a mean RA duration of14 years were included in the study. 87.7% of the patients were female and mean age was53 (SD; 15.0). Median duration of follow-up was 18.5 months. Majority (90.8%) of patients were given tocilizumab via intravenous route at baseline. Number of patients with ongoing TCZ treatment and follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months were 121 (93%), 85 (65%), and 46 (35%), respectively. Remission rates at 6, 12, and 24 months per CDAI (<2.8) and DAS28-(ESR) (<2.6) scores were 61.5%, 44.6%, 30%, and 54.6%, 40.8%, 27.7%, respectively. CDAI, DAS28-(ESR) and HAQ-DI survey scores significantly improved at 6, 12 and 26 months, respectively (p<0.001) (Table 1) in both IV and SC TCZ subgroups. At 6, 12 and 24months 74.8%, 82.5% and 86.4% of patients achieved a EULAR good response respectively. Twenty-three patients (17.6%) discontinued TCZ at 24 months. Of these, 19 patients discontinued due to unsatisfactory response. Retention rates of TCZ at 6, 12, and 24 months were 93%, 84.3%, and 72.2%, respectively (Figure 1).Conclusion:TCZ as a first-line biologic treatment was found to be clinically effective in this real-world study with a high retention rate. These results are in line with the results gathered from previous TCZ controlled and real-life studies in which TCZ was found clinically safe and effective.References:[1]Haraoui B, Casado G, Czirjak L, Taylor A, Dong L, Button P, Luder Y, Caporali R. Tocilizumab Patterns of Use, Effectiveness, and Safety in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Final Results from a Set of Multi-National Non-Interventional Studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Jun;6(2):231-243.[2]Favalli EG, Raimondo MG, Becciolini A, Crotti C, Biggioggero M, Caporali R. The management of first-line biologic therapy failures in rheumatoid arthritis: Current practice and future perspectives. Autoimmun Rev. 2017 Dec;16(12):1185-1195.[3]Haraoui B, Jamal S, Ahluwalia V, Fung D, Manchanda T, Khraishi M. Real-World Tocilizumab Use in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Canada: 12-Month Results from an Observational, Noninterventional Study. Rheumatol Ther. 2018 Dec; 5(2): 551–565.Disclosure of Interests:Ayten Yazici Speakers bureau: PFIZER, AbbVie, NOVARTIS, Özlem Özdemir Işik: None declared, Ediz Dalkiliç Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, PFIZER, Roche, MSD, NOVARTIS, Süleyman Serdar Koca Speakers bureau: MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, SANOFİ, Yavuz Pehlivan Speakers bureau: PFIZER, NOVARTIS, MSD, CELLTRION, Consultant of: PFIZER, Soner Şenel: None declared, Nevsun Inanc Speakers bureau: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Paid instructor for: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Consultant of: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Grant/research support from: NOVARTIS, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, Servet Akar Speakers bureau: LILLY, MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, Paid instructor for: LILLY, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB, AMGEN, Grant/research support from: PFIZER, Sema Yilmaz: None declared, Özgül Soysal Gündüz: None declared, Ayse Cefle Speakers bureau: UCB Pharma, PFIZER, MSD, AbbVie, AMGEN, NOVARTIS, Fatos Onen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, LILLY, MSD, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, JANNSEN, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, İbrahim Etem-MENARINI, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, LILLY, NOVARTIS, GILEAD, PFIZER, ABDI IBRAHIM, UCB Pharma, AMGEN, İbrahim Etem-MENARINI, Grant/research support from: PFIZER

scholarly journals AB0256 BARICITINIB (BARI) VERSUS BIOLOGICS IMPACT ON STEROID TAPERING IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA)

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1154-1155
Author(s):  
L. Cometi ◽  
C. Bruni ◽  
L. Tofani ◽  
G. Tesei ◽  
F. Nacci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Functional Disability ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Research Support

Background:Biologic and target synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs and tcDMARDs) are recommended to control RA disease activity, pain and steroid use. Following randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their post-hoc analyses, the Janus Kinase Inhibitor tsDMARDs BARI was superior to reference bDMARD Adalimumab in reducing disease activity, pain and functional disability. In addition, BARI monotherapy also determined more significant pain reduction and functional improvement when compared to Tocilizumab monotherapy (3).Objectives:to confirm RCT results in a real-life clinical setting, with focus on disease activity, pain, functional disability and steroid tapering, when comparing BARI to bDMARDs for the treatment of active RA.Methods:RA patients starting BARI or a bDMARD for active RA were retrospectively evaluated from June 2019 to June 2020. Disease activity (DAS28CRP, SDAI, CDAI), pain visual analogic scale (pain_VAS), functional disability (HAQ) assessments and mean prednisone dosage (pred_dose) were collected at baseline (BL), 3 months (3M) and 6 months (6M) after BARI/bDMARD initiation. The changes of the outcome measures were evaluated between BL-3M, 3M-6M and BL-6M, as well as between BARI and bDMARDs groups. Finally, we assessed the variables associated with prednisone tapering in the whole population.Results:90 out of 100 RA patients evaluated (baseline: age 57±12 years, disease duration 131±100 months, DAS28PCR 4.8±1.0, pain_VAS 61±23 mm, prednisone dose 5.5±5.3 mg) were eligible for the study; 49 received BARI and 41 bDMARDs (17 abatacept, 12 TNF inhibitors, 11 tocilizumab, 1 rituximab). At BL, the two groups did not differ statistically in terms of age, sex, disease duration, disease activity, pain_VAS, previous bDMARD failure or ts/bDMARD naive, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs treatment, pred_dose. Both BARI and bDMARDs determined a significant reduction in activity scales and HAQ when comparing BL-3M and BL-6M, with only pain_VAS and pred_dose showing a significant decrease in the 3M-6M interval. When comparing the two groups, BARI showed a significantly higher reduction of pred_dose (-3.2±5.1 vs -1.7±3.7 mg at BL-3M, and -4.1±5.3 vs -1.9±4.6 mg at BL-6M), which was not significant after adjusting for BL pred_dose. No other difference was seen when the two groups, including the numerically higher reduction of pain_VAS in the BARI group (-29±28 vs -20±27 mm at BL-3M and -35±25 vs -30±28 mm at BL-6M comparison). The analysis of the predictors for steroid tapering (Δmean_pred) in the two intervals, showed that BL DAS28PCR, DAS28PCR BL-3M change and BL pred_dose were associated with BL-3M Δmean_pred, while 3M pain_VAS and 3M pred_dose were associated with 3M-6M Δmean_pred.Conclusion:Although limited by the small samples and the retrospective nature, our real-life comparison shows similar efficacy of BARI and bDMARDs in terms of disease activity control, functional disability and pain. In addition, the treatment with BARI or bDMARD did not influence the steroid tapering, which was driven mostly by its initial dose, disease activity and pain. Larger real-life multi-center studies are warranted to confirm our results.References:[1]Taylor PC et al. Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 16;376(7):652-662.[2]Fautrel B et al. Effect of Baricitinib and Adalimumab in Reducing Pain and Improving Function in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Low Disease Activity: Exploratory Analyses from RA-BEAM. J Clin Med. 2019 Sep 5;8(9):1394.[3]Fautrel B et al. Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment withDisclosure of Interests:Laura Cometi: None declared, Cosimo Bruni Speakers bureau: Actelion, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Fondazione Italiana Ricerca sull’Artrite (FIRA), Gruppo Italiano lotta alla Sclerodermia (GILS), New Horizon Fellowship, European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group, Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM)., Lorenzo Tofani: None declared, Giulia Tesei: None declared, Francesca Nacci: None declared, Ginevra Fiori: None declared, Francesca Bartoli: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic Speakers bureau: Biogen Italia, Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: Biogen Italia, Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Eli-Lilly, Grant/research support from: Biogen Italia, Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Eli-Lilly,

scholarly journals AB0141 THE DYNAMICAL TRAJECTORY OF GLUCOCORTICOIDS TAPERING AND DISCONTINUATION IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS COMMENCING GLUCOCORTICOIDS WITH CSDMARDS: A REAL-WORLD DATA FROM 2009 TO 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1098.1-1098
Author(s):  
W. Xie ◽  
H. Huang ◽  
Z. Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:Glucocorticoids (GC) are currently recommended as bridging therapy in combination with csDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and should be tapered as rapidly as clinically feasible for safety concerns about their long-term use [1-3].Objectives:To unravel the dynamical trajectory and characteristics of GCs tapering and discontinuation in RA patients commencing GCs with concomitant csDMARDs.Methods:We used data from longitudinal real-world TARRA (Treat-to-TARget in RA) cohort in Peking University First Hospital. RA patient who started GCs and contaminant csDMARDs therapy over 1-year follow-up were included. The changes in GCs dose and disease activity in the context of csDMARDs were evaluated. GCs discontinuation rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The relapse profiles within 6 months after GCs discontinuation were also analyzed.Results:A total of 207 RA patients were included. During a median follow-up duration of 38.6 months, 124 (59.9%) patients discontinued GC. The median oral prednisolone dose of 10 (5-10) mg/d at initiation was reduced by 50% in the first 6 months and then more slowly reduced, finally to zero by 48 months. The cumulative probability of GCs discontinuation was 26.6% at year 1, 48.0% at year 2, 58.6% at year 3, with calculated median time of 27 months (Figure 1). Of the 124 patients who discontinued GCs, add of other csDMARDs or increment of current csDMARDs was required in 29.0% of them. Approximately half of 124 patients were in clinical remission at the time point of GCs discontinuation. Within 6 months after GCs withdrawal, 79.1% (91/115) of participants maintained relapse-free.Figure 1.Kaplan-Meier curve with cumulative probability of glucocorticoids discontinuation in RA patients who start glucocorticoids with concomitant csDMARDs during the follow-up period. csDMARDs: conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.Conclusion:In RA patients commencing GCs in addition to csDMARDs, GCs are feasibly discontinued with favorable control of disease activity in real-life setting, mostly without short-term flare. Adding targeted therapies are sometimes required to attain GCs discontinuation within the time frame of 3 months in current guidelines.References:[1]Hoes JN, Jacobs JW, Buttgereit F, Bijlsma JW. Current view of glucocorticoid co-therapy with DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2010 Dec;6(12):693-702. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2010.179.[2]Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):685-699. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655.[3]Conn DL. The Story Behind the Use of Glucocorticoids in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020 Dec 17;51(1):15-19. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.09.016.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Real-World Methotrexate Dose on Clinical Effectiveness and Structural Damage of Certolizumab Pegol With Rheumatoid Arthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuji Nozaki ◽  
Toshihiko Hidaka ◽  
Jinhai Ri ◽  
Tetsu Itami ◽  
Daisuke Tomita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Tnf Inhibitors ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Fab Fragment

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments have markedly advanced with the introduction of biological agents, e. g., tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. TNF inhibitors are demonstrated to be quite effective in combination with methotrexate (MTX), and sufficient doses of both agents are important to control RA's disease activity. However, not all RA patients can be treated with high-dose MTX due to contraindications related to the antimetabolite action of MTX or to tolerability concerns. In daily practice, this has resulted in reduced effectiveness of TNF inhibitors. We sought to determine whether the concomitant use of dose of MTX affected the clinical effectiveness, retention rate, and side effects of certolizumab pegol (CZP) for treating RA in a real-world setting. CZP is a pegylated–conjugated Fab' fragment of a humanized anti-TNF antibody that has high affinity to TNF.Patients and Methods: We divided Japanese RA patients treated with CZP (n = 95, 25–83 years old) into groups based on those with (n = 65) and without (n = 30) concomitant MTX and those treated with a high dose (≥8 mg, n = 41) or low dose (1– &lt;8 mg, n = 24) of MTX. We retrospectively analyzed the concomitant MTX doses' effects and side effects and the patient retention rate.Results: There were no significant differences among the CZP groups with and without MTX or the groups receiving the high vs. low MTX doses in the retention rate, the low disease activity rate, or the inhibitory effect in radiographic joint damage.Conclusion: CZP has the potential to be a useful biological agent to control RA's disease activity and the bone destruction in patients who cannot tolerate a sufficient MTX dose.

scholarly journals SAT0432 EFFECT OF SEX ON DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISEASE IMPACT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE REAL-WORLD, OBSERVATIONAL MULTINATIONAL PsABio COHORT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1171.1-1173
Author(s):  
M. T. Nurmohamed ◽  
I. Van der Horst-Bruinsma ◽  
A. W. Van Kuijk ◽  
S. Siebert ◽  
P. Bergmans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Physical Functioning ◽  
Real World ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Diagnosis Delay ◽  
Health State ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Disease Characteristics ◽  
Disease Impact

Background:Female sex has been associated with more severe disease and poorer treatment outcomes in PsA. These observations are often based on small populations or national cohorts/registries.Objectives:To investigate the effects of sex on disease characteristics and disease impact in PsA, using data of 929 consecutive patients (pts) from PsABio.Methods:PsABio is a real-world, non-interventional European study in PsA pts treated with UST or TNFi based on their rheumatologist’s choice. Observed male and female baseline (BL) data were described and compared using 95% CI.Results:Women in PsABio (n=512 [55%]) were numerically older than men (mean [SD]: 50.5 [12.7] / 48.7 [12.3] years, respectively). Women were more obese (BMI >30), % (95% CI): F: 35 (30, 39), M: 24 (20, 29), men more overweight (BMI >25–30): F: 31 (27, 36), M:51 (46, 57). Age at diagnosis, delay from first symptom to diagnosis, and disease duration were similar for both sexes.Women entered PsABio more often on 3rd line treatment, whereas men started on 1st-line biologic treatment more often (F/M 1st line 47%/55%; 2nd line 34%/33%; 3rd line 20%/12%). Numerically, concomitant MTX was given more often to women vs men (32% vs 27%). At BL, 60% of women and 64% of men were on NSAIDs; 7.9% and 2.5% on antidepressant drugs. Women had significantly more comorbidities, with numerically more cardiovascular disease and anxiety/depression, and 3 times more IBD.Women had significantly higher 68 tender joint counts (TJC): 13.0 vs 10.4, while 66 swollen joint counts were not significantly different: 5.8 vs 5.5. Axial or combined axial-peripheral disease was similarly frequent, in 29% of women and 26% of men (Figs. 1, 2).Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) was higher in women (31.8 vs 27.3); pt-reported levels of pain, global disease activity (VAS scales) and higher TJC contributed to this. While enthesitis prevalence (based on Leeds Enthesitis Index) was comparable, men had significantly more frequent dactylitis, nail disease and worse skin psoriasis. At BL, 3.4% of women vs 7.1% of men, were in MDA.Regarding physical functioning (HAQ-DI), impact of disease (PSAID-12) and quality of life (EQ5D-3L health state), women with PsA starting a biologic (b)DMARD, expressed significantly greater negative impact and more limitations due to their disease (Fig. 2).Conclusion:In routine care, women with PsA starting a bDMARD presented with worse outcomes over a range of assessments compared with men (higher pt-reported pain and disease activity, TJC, and worse physical functioning and QoL), while men had worse dactylitis and psoriasis. Follow-up analysis will report whether the effects of biologic therapy are different in both sexes. The increased prevalence of associated features related to pain and impact on functioning and QoL may indicate the need for a more comprehensive treatment approach for women to avoid unnecessary and premature bDMARD stop or switch.Acknowledgments:This study was funded by Janssen.Disclosure of Interests:Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Arno WR van Kuijk Grant/research support from: Janssen, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document