scholarly journals POS0492 A MOLECULAR SIGNATURE RESPONSE CLASSIFIER PREDICTS THE LIKELIHOOD OF EULAR NON-RESPONSE TO TNF INHIBITOR THERAPIES IN RA: RESULTS FROM A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT ANALYSIS

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1096.3-1097
Author(s):  
S. Cohen ◽  
V. Strand ◽  
E. Connolly-Strong ◽  
J. Withers ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
...  

Background:There is an urgent need for precision medicine in targeted therapy selection for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are the most prescribed targeted therapy for RA patients, yet the majority of patients fail to achieve a clinically meaningful response using this medication class. A blood-based molecular signature test evaluates RNA and clinical metrics to stratify RA patients based on their likelihood of having an inadequate response to TNFi therapies.1 Patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapies can be directed to a different treatment option such as a JAK inhibitor, thus reducing the time needed to identify an effective therapy, improving confidence in and adherence to treatment, and increasing the patients’ chance of reaching treat-to-target goals.Objectives:High-titers of anti-cyclic citrillunated protein (anti-CCP) have been independently associated with reduced response to TNFi therapy;2 thus, we evaluated the ability of a blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test to stratify RA patients by their likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies – regardless of their positive or negative anti-CCP status.Methods:A subset of patients enrolled in the Network-04 prospective observational trial evaluating the ability of a molecular signature response classifier to stratify patients were subdivided into two groups based upon whether they were positive (N = 72) or negative (N = 74) for anti-CCP. The odds of inadequate response to TNFi therapies were calculated based on whether or not a patient had a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy at baseline before the start of treatment. Odds ratios and confidence intervals were calculated3,4 to represent the strength of association between detecting the molecular signature of non-response and the patient’s failure to achieve ACR50 at 6 months.Results:The odds that a patient with a molecular signature of non-response failed to meet ACR50 criteria at 6 months was approximately three times greater than among those patients who lacked the signal (Table 1). No significant difference in odds ratios was observed between patients who were positive or negative for anti-CCP.Table 1.The odds of patients with a molecular signature of non-response failing to achieve an ACR50 response 6 months after TNF inhibitor therapy initiationOdds ratio (95% confidence interval)Anti-CCP positive3.5 (1.3-9.7)Anti-CCP negative3.1 (1.2-8.3)Conclusion:The MSRC test evaluates RA disease biology and accurately stratifies patients based on their likelihood of having an inadequate response to TNFi therapies, regardless of being negative or positive for anti-CCP autoantibodies. Rheumatologists can use the results of the MSRC test to inform targeted therapy selection for RA patients, instead of their anti-CCP serostatus, eliminating the variability inherent to the anti-CCP measurement and its inability to consistently predict TNFi therapy incompatibility. With the MSRC test, providers can rely on a more predictable and accurate assessment of TNFi therapy success or failure when coordinating patient management.References:[1]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 Medicine3, 91-104, doi:10.1089/nsm.2020.0007 (2020).[2]Braun-Moscovici, Y. et al. Anti-cyclic citrullinated protein antibodies as a predictor of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol33, 497-500 (2006).[3]Szumilas, M. Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry19, 227-229 (2010).[4]Sperandei, S. Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 24, 12-18, doi:10.11613/BM.2014.003 (2014).Disclosure of Interests:Stanley Cohen: None declared, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen,Kiniksa, Lilly,Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, UCB, 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, Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Ted Mellors 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. 1450.2-1450
Author(s):  
H. Bjørngaard ◽  
H. Koksvik ◽  
B. Jakobsen ◽  
M. Wallenius

Background:Treat to target is a goal, also in pregnant women with Rheumatoid arthritis (1). There is increasing evidence on safe use with TNF inhibitors during pregnancy. Adjusted use of TNF inhibitors preconception and throughout pregnancy may stabilize disease activity and prevent flares (2). Low disease activity is also beneficial for the fetus.Objectives:To study the use of TNF-inhibitors among women with Rheumatic arthritis during and after pregnancy.Methods:RevNatus is a Norwegian, nationwide quality register that monitors treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases before, during and after pregnancy. Data from RevNatus in the period October 2017 to October 2019 was used to map the use of all types of TNF inhibitors among 208 women with rheumatoid arthritis, diagnosed by the ACR/EULAR criteria. The use of medication was reported at the time of visit in outpatient clinic. The frequency of use of TNF inhibitors registered at seven timepoints from pre-pregnancy to twelve months after delivery.Results:The use of medication was reported at each visit for all the women with rheumatoid arthritis. Most of the women were not using TNF inhibitors before and beyond conception. Most of the women continuing TNF inhibitors beyond conception used certolizumab or etanercept. Adalimumab and infliximab were used in pregnancy (tabell 1).Tabell 1.certoliz-umabetane-rceptadalim-umabgolim-umabinflixi-mabNo TNF-inhibitorBefore pregnancyn=10521% (22)9% (10)3% (3)1% (1)66% (69)1.trimestern=8119% (15)10% (8)71% (58)2.trimestern=8810% (9)10% (9)80% (70)3.trimestern=9111% (10)5% (5)83% (76)6 weeks post partum n=9622% (21)13% (13)1% (1)1% (1)63% (60)6 months post partum n=8824% (21)18% (16)4% (4)1% (1)53% (46)12 months post partum n=8421% (18)17% (15)7% (6)2% (2)53% (43)Conclusion:Most of the women with rheumatic arthritis were not treated with TNF inhibitors before or in pregnancy. Women with rheumatic arthritis that continuing treatment with TNF inhibitors through pregnancy were using certilozumab and etanercept.References:[1]Gotestam Skorpen C, Hoeltzenbein M, Tincani A, Fischer-Betz R, Elefant E, Chambers C, et al. The EULAR points to consider for use of antirheumatic drugs before pregnancy, and during pregnancy and lactation. 2016;75(5):795-810.[2]van den Brandt S, Zbinden A, Baeten D, Villiger PM, Ostensen M, Forger F. Risk factors for flare and treatment of disease flares during pregnancy in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis patients. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):64.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 773-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Mary ◽  
Michel De Bandt ◽  
Cédric Lukas ◽  
Jacques Morel ◽  
Bernard Combe

Objective.For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), the relative effectiveness of the combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with the combination of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and MTX, as second-line therapy, is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of triple oral DMARD therapy versus anti-TNF agents associated with MTX in patients with RA after MTX failure.Methods.We performed a systematic search of the literature up to November 2015 in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) meetings from 2006 to 2015. Articles were included if they were of randomized controlled trials of patients receiving triple oral combination therapy (TT; MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) compared with anti-TNF agents plus MTX. Treatment effects were examined by disease activity [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)], ACR and EULAR response criteria, structural damage by the modified total Sharp score, and functional disability by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).Results.Our search identified 263 articles; only 5 fulfilled the selection criteria. Analysis of ACR and EULAR response criteria, DAS28, and modified Sharp scores favored anti-TNF agents combined with MTX. Functional disability (HAQ) and rates of adverse events did not differ between treatments.Conclusion.In patients with RA in whom MTX has failed, the addition of a TNF antagonist to MTX may be a valid option, with better clinical outcomes and better radiographic results in the presence of poor prognostic factors. In the absence of poor prognostic factors and/or with contraindications to biologic agents, TT retains its place in the therapeutic strategy for RA in a currently restricted economic context.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 184.2-184
Author(s):  
I. Flouri ◽  
A. Repa ◽  
N. Avgustidis ◽  
N. Kougkas ◽  
A. Eskitzis ◽  
...  

Background:Difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) was recently defined by a EULAR study group (1) and, as a disease category it is largely complicated and under-researched. Patient comorbidities may play a significant role in the response to therapy with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and in the disease classification as D2T RA.Objectives:To evaluate the impact of comorbidities [studied as total Comorbidities Count (CC) and rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI)] on 6-month response to therapy with the first bDMARD in real-world clinical practice and on eventual disease designation as D2T RA.Methods:Prospective study of all RA patients who start any bDMARD in a tertiary centre University Hospital after their consent. All patient comorbidities [among a list of approximately 100 pre-specified major comorbidities] are registered by treating physicians. Response to therapy was defined as achievement of low disease activity or remission (LDA/Rem) according to simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) improvement of ≥ 0.25.D2T RA patient group was defined according to the EULAR definition of D2T RA and was compared to: a/ all other patients and b/ to a sub-group of patients designated as “well-controlled RA” (follow-up ≥2 years and ≥2 visits in the last year in LDA/Rem).Logistic regression models were used to adjust for the potential confounding of age, sex, disease duration, seropositivity, number of previous synthetic DMARDs, type of 1st bDMARD initiated (TNF inhibitor vs. non-TNF inhibitor), co-administered methotrexate and corticosteroids (yes/no), baseline SDAI and HAQ and year of therapy start.Results:Analysis included 501 RA patients who received a total of 1098 bDMARD treatments. At 1st bDMARD treatment start, patients (women: 81%) had a median (IQR) age: 60 (51-68) years, disease duration: 5.4 (3-11) years, SDAI: 36 (28-46), HAQ: 1.0 (0.5-1.5), CC: 3 (2-6) και RDCI: 2 (0-3).In adjusted analyses, total comorbidity count (CC) ≤1 (vs ≥ 2) was predicting LDA/Rem at 6 months of therapy [OR (95%CI) = 4.1 (1.5-11), p=0.005], while RDCI=0 (vs. ≥ 1) was predicting HAQ improvement ≥ 0.25 [OR (95% CI) = 2.6 (1.2-6.7), p=0.046].During 2614 patient-years of follow-up, the disease in 98 patients could be classified as “D2T RA”, while 127 patients had “well-controlled RA”. Baseline independent predictors for D2T RA compared to all other patients were RDCI ≥ 1 (vs. 0) [OR = 3.3 (1.7-9.4), p = 0.024], female sex [OR =3.1 (1.01-9.5)] and age [OR = 0.97 (0.94-0.99)]. Multivariable analyses for predictors of “D2T” compared to “well-controlled” RA yielded similar results.Conclusion:In RA patients starting the first bDMARD treatment, a higher number of comorbidities at baseline is an independent predictor of lower 6-month response to therapy and final disease classification as “difficult-to-treat” RA.References:[1]Nagy G, Roodenrijs NM, Welsing PM, Kedves M, Hamar A, van der Goes MC, et al. EULAR definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jan;80(1):31–5.Acknowledgements:Pancretan Health Association and Special Account for Research Grants (ELKE) – University of Crete.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


Rheumatology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 831-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D H Hamann ◽  
Gavin Shaddick ◽  
Kimme Hyrich ◽  
Amelia Green ◽  
Neil McHugh ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To evaluate determinants of discordance between DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP and resulting impact on disease activity stratification in RA. Methods Paired DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP readings (n = 31 074) were obtained from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA. Factors influencing discordance between DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP were evaluated alongside the resulting effect on disease activity stratification. The impact of gender adjustment to the DAS28-CRP was evaluated. Results DAS28-CRP scores were ∼0.3 lower than DAS28-ESR overall, with greatest differences for women (−0.35) and patients over 50 years old (−0.34). Mean male DAS28-CRP scores were 0.15 less than corresponding DAS28-ESR scores. Discordance between DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP significantly impacted disease activity stratification at low disease activity and remission thresholds (32.0% and 66.6% concordance, respectively). Adjusting DAS28-CRP scores by gender significantly (P < 0.001) improved agreement with the DAS28-ESR. Conclusion Discordance between DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP is greatest for women and patients over 50 years of age, and influences disease activity stratification. The proposed gender-adjusted DAS28-CRP improves inter-score agreement with DAS28-ESR, supporting more reliable disease activity stratification in treat-to-target approaches for RA.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 900.1-900
Author(s):  
L. Diebold ◽  
T. Wirth ◽  
V. Pradel ◽  
N. Balandraud ◽  
E. Fockens ◽  
...  

Background:Among therapeutics used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Tocilizumab (TCZ) and Abatacept (ABA) are both biologic agents that can be delivered subcutaneously (SC) or intravenously (IV). During the first COVID-19 lockdown in France, all patients treated with IV TCZ or IV ABA were offered the option to switch to SC administration.Objectives:The primary aim was to assess the impact of changing the route of administration on the disease activity. The second aim was to assess whether the return to IV route at the patient’s request was associated with disease activity variation, flares, anxiety, depression and low physical activity during the lockdown.Methods:We conducted a prospective monocentric observational study. Eligibility criteria: Adult ≥ 18 years old, RA treated with IV TCZ or IV ABA with a stable dose ≥3 months, change in administration route (from IV to SC) between March 16, 2020, and April 17, 2020. The following data were collected at baseline and 6 months later (M6): demographics, RA characteristics, treatment, history of previous SC treatment, disease activity (DAS28), self-administered questionnaires on flares, RA life repercussions, physical activity, anxiety and depression (FLARE, RAID, Ricci &Gagnon, HAD).The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a DAS28 variation>1.2 at M6. Analyses: Chi2-test for quantitative variables and Mann-Whitney test for qualitative variables. Factors associated with return to IV route identification was performed with univariate and multivariate analysis.Results:Among the 84 patients who were offered to switch their treatment route of administration, 13 refused to change their treatment. Among the 71 who switched (48 TCZ, 23 ABA), 58 had a M6 follow-up visit (13 lost of follow-up) and DAS28 was available for 49 patients at M6. Main baseline characteristics: female 81%, mean age 62.7, mean disease duration: 16.0, ACPA positive: 72.4%, mean DAS28: 2.01, previously treated with SC TCZ or ABA: 17%.At M6, the mean DAS28 variation was 0.18 ± 0.15. Ten (12.2%) patients had a DAS28 worsening>1.2 (ABA: 5/17 [29.4%] and TCZ: 5/32 [15.6%], p= 0.152) and 19 patients (32.8%) had a DAS28 worsening>0.6 (ABA: 11/17 [64.7%] and TCZ: 8/32 [25.0%], p= 0.007).At M6, 41 patients (77.4%) were back to IV route (26 TCZ, 15 ABA) at their request. The proportion of patients with a DAS28 worsening>1.2 and>0.6 in the groups return to IV versus SC maintenance were 22.5%, 42.5% versus 11.1% and 22.2% (p=0.4), respectively. The univariate analysis identified the following factors associated with the return to IV route: HAD depression score (12 vs 41, p=0.009), HAS anxiety score (12 vs 41, p=0.047) and corticosteroid use (70% vs 100%, p=0.021), in the SC maintenance vs return to IV, respectively.Conclusion:The change of administration route of TCZ and ABA during the first COVID-19 lockdown was infrequently associated with a worsening of RA disease. However, the great majority of the patients (77.4%) request to return to IV route, even without disease activity worsening. This nocebo effect was associated with higher anxiety and depression scores.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
B. Fautrel ◽  
R. Caporali ◽  
E. Holdsworth ◽  
B. Donaghy ◽  
M. Khalid ◽  
...  

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


Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Gaujoux-Viala ◽  
Christophe Hudry ◽  
Elena Zinovieva ◽  
Hélène Herman-Demars ◽  
René-Marc Flipo

Abstract Objectives The STRATEGE study aimed to describe treatment strategies in current practice in RA bDMARD-naive patients with an inadequate response to MTX therapy, and to compare clinical efficacy of the different therapeutic strategies on disease activity after six months. Methods Main inclusion criteria of this prospective, observational, multicentre study were confirmed RA diagnosis, treatment by MTX monotherapy, and need for therapeutic management modification. Results The 722 patients included had a mean (S.D.) RA duration of 5.3 (6.7) years, a mean DAS28 of 4.0 (±1.1); they were all receiving MTX monotherapy, 68% oral, at a mean dose of 15.0 (4.1) mg/wk. Two major strategies were identified: (i) MTX monotherapy dose and/or route optimization (72%) and (ii) bDMARD initiation ± MTX (16%). MTX dosing was modified for 70% of patients, maintained (dose and route) for 28% of patients, and interrupted for 2%. bDMARDs were started when the MTX mean dose was 17.4 mg/wk, 56% parenterally; MTX was maintained concomitantly for 96% of patients. Six-month follow-up results adjusted by propensity score showed that both options were equally successful in improving disease activity and physical function, with 63% and 68% of good-to-moderate EULAR responses, respectively. Conclusion The STRATEGE study shows the importance of initial MTX treatment optimization before initiation of a biological treatment and emphasizes the importance of treat-to-target strategy.


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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document