Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs. Methods Patients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests. Results Data from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients. Conclusions Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

Download Full-text

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-019-2059-8 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Michael Schiff ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Alan Friedman ◽

Sebastian Meerwein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Normative Values ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Antirheumatic Drugs ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Disease Modifying

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). Methods PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated. Results In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients. Conclusions In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo. Trial registration The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Download Full-text

Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keaa770 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Alvin Wells ◽

Maya H Buch ◽

Sebastiao C Radominski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Short Form ◽

Work Productivity ◽

Least Square ◽

Normative Values ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Clinical Trial Registration ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined. Results In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values. Conclusion Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone. Clinical trial registration number SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001040 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. e001040 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Eduardo Mysler ◽

Robert J Moots ◽

Gene V Wallenstein ◽

Ryan DeMasi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Link Type ◽

Combination Treatments ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Phase Iiib

ObjectiveTo provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores.ResultsSubstantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points.ConclusionTreatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning.Trial registration numberNCT02187055.

Download Full-text

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keab158 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Namita Tundia ◽

Martin Bergman ◽

Andrew Ostor ◽

Patrick Durez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Least Squares ◽

Physical Component Summary ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Normative Values ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Adalimumab Treatment ◽

The Impact

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). Methods PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included PtGA and pain by VAS, HAQ-DI, 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, FACIT-F, and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. Results Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (p < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (p < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (p < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all p < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (p < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. Conclusion In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of neuropsychiatric events in systemic lupus erythematosus based on clinical phenotypes; prospective data from the Leiden NP SLE cohort

Lupus ◽

10.1177/0961203316689145 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 26 (5) ◽

pp. 543-551 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

C Magro-Checa ◽

L J J Beaart-van de Voorde ◽

H A M Middelkoop ◽

M L Dane ◽

N J van der Wee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽

Clinical Outcome ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Lupus Erythematosus ◽

Short Form ◽

Systemic Lupus ◽

Meaningful Improvement ◽

Neuropsychiatric Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported

Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether clinical and patient’s reported outcomes are associated with a different pathophysiological origin of neuropsychiatric events presenting in systemic lupus erythematosus. Methods A total of 232 neuropsychiatric events presenting in 131 systemic lupus erythematosus patients were included. Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus diagnosis was established per event by multidisciplinary evaluation. All neuropsychiatric events were divided according to a suspected underlying pathophysiological process into one of the following: non-neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus related, inflammatory and ischaemic neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus. The clinical outcome of all neuropsychiatric events was determined by a physician-completed four-point Likert scale. Health-related quality of life was measured with the subscales of the patient-generated Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire. The change between scores at paired visits of all domain scores, mental component summary (SF-36 MCS) and physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) scores were retrospectively calculated and used as patient-reported outcome. The association among these outcomes and the different origin of neuropsychiatric events was obtained using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results The clinical status of 26.8% non-neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus events, 15.8% ischaemic neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus and 51.6% inflammatory neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus improved after re-assessment. Almost all SF-36 domains had a positive change at re-assessment in all groups independently of the origin of neuropsychiatric events. Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus ( B = 0.502; p < 0.001) and especially inflammatory neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus ( B = 0.827; p < 0.001) had better clinical outcome, with change in disease activity being the only important predictor. The change in SF-36 MCS was also independently associated with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus ( B = 5.783; p < 0.05) and inflammatory neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus ( B = 11.133; p < 0.001). Disease duration and change in disease activity were the only predictors in both cases. The change in SF-36 PCS was only negatively associated with age. Conclusion Inflammatory neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus events have better clinical outcome and meaningful improvement in SF-36 MCS than ischaemic neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus or non-neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus.

Download Full-text

DOP88 Effect of risankizumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with Crohn’s Disease who had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional and/or biologic treatments: Results from phase 3 MOTIVATE and ADVANCE trials

Journal of Crohn s and Colitis ◽

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab073.127 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S119-S121

Author(s):

L Peyrin-Biroulet ◽

E Louis ◽

S Ghosh ◽

S D Lee ◽

J Griffith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Crohn’S Disease ◽

Crohn's Disease ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Biologic Treatment ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background Risankizumab (RZB), an IL-23 inhibitor, is being investigated for Crohn’s disease (CD). MOTIVATE (NCT03105128) and ADVANCE (NCT03104413) were two double-blind, randomised, placebo (PBO)-controlled phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of RZB as induction therapy for CD after inadequate response or intolerance to biologic treatment, or conventional or biologic treatment. We investigated the effect of RZB on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in these two trials. Methods Patients with moderately to severely active CD (CD activity index of 220–450, Simple Endoscopic Score for CD excluding the narrowing component ≥ 6 or ≥ 4 for isolated ileal disease, and average daily stool frequency ≥ 4 and/or average daily abdominal pain score ≥ 2) were randomised 1:1:1 (MOTIVATE; N=569) or 2:2:1 (ADVANCE; N=850) to intravenous RZB 600 mg, RZB 1200 mg or PBO at Weeks 0, 4 and 8. PROs assessed were Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF 36). Least-squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 and 12 were assessed for each PRO. Additionally, the proportion of patients achieving IBDQ remission (IBDQ total score ≥ 170 points) was evaluated. Comparisons between RZB dosage groups and PBO were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel or chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests; missing data were reported using non-responder imputation. Results In the MOTIVATE (100% biologic inadequate responder [bio-IR]) and ADVANCE (57% bio-IR) trials, significant (P<0.05) improvements in nearly all PROs evaluated were seen as early as Week 4 (Figures 1–4). At Week 12, significant improvements in all PROs were reported for both doses of RZB compared with PBO in both trials, except for the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (RZB 1200 mg in MOTIVATE), which improved, but not significantly. In MOTIVATE, at Week 4 and 12, IBDQ remission was achieved by significantly (P<0.05) more patients taking RZB (600 mg, 25.1%/38.3%; RZB 1200 mg, 31.9%/44.6%) than PBO (15.5%/26.8%). Results were similar in ADVANCE: RZB 600 mg 30.9%/44.5%, RZB 1200 mg 33.7%/51.5%, and PBO 18.4%/29.8% at weeks 4 and 12, respectively (P<0.001 for both RZB groups compared to PBO). Conclusion Patients with active CD and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic treatment who received RZB (600 mg or 1200 mg) induction therapy reported significant improvements in disease-specific (IBDQ) and general health-related PROs (FACIT and SF-36) compared with PBO, with improvements seen as early as Week 4. Funding statement: Study was funded by AbbVie. Acknowledgement: Medical writing support was provided by Joann Hettasch of Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, and was funded by AbbVie.

Download Full-text

Certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate provides broad relief from the burden of rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of patient-reported outcomes from the RAPID 2 trial

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/ard.2010.143586 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 70 (6) ◽

pp. 996-1002 ◽

Cited By ~ 44

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Josef S Smolen ◽

Ronald F van Vollenhoven ◽

Philip Mease ◽

Gerd R Burmester ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Physical Function ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Certolizumab Pegol ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Impact

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to interpret these results using number needed to treat (NNT), and associations between PRO responses and longer term outcomes.MethodsA total of 619 patients with active RA were randomised to CZP 200 or 400 mg, or placebo plus methotrexate (MTX). PROs assessed included pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), physical function, fatigue and health-related quality of life. Treatment impact on PROs, NNT to achieve simultaneous improvements in multiple PROs and correlations between PROs were calculated. Times to onset of improvements greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in pain as a determinant of clinical outcomes at week 24 were compared between week 6 and 12 responders, and in patients with improvements in pain ≥MCID at week 12 (week 12 responders/non-responders).ResultsCZP 200 and 400 mg plus MTX were associated with rapid, clinically meaningful improvements in all PROs. The NNT for subjects to report changes ≥MCID in up to five PROs was two to three, and five for all six PROs (pain, PtGA, physical function, fatigue and short-form 36-item Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores). More patients with improvements ≥MCID in pain at week 6 than those at week 12 had lower disease activity at week 24. Week 12 pain responders had better clinical outcomes at week 24 than non-responders.ConclusionsThe data demonstrate that CZP provides broad relief from the burden of RA.Trial registration numberNCT00160602.

Download Full-text

The impact of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of Phase 3 studies

Arthritis Research & Therapy ◽

10.1186/s13075-021-02677-7 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 24 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Clifton O. Bingham ◽

David Walker ◽

Peter Nash ◽

Susan J. Lee ◽

Lei Ye ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Short Form ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Activity Impairment ◽

Link Type ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background The effects of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from 3 trials in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were investigated. Methods Methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients received filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus MTX (FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX monotherapy through 52 weeks (NCT02886728). Patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR) received FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX, adalimumab 40 mg +MTX (ADA+MTX), or placebo (PBO)+MTX (rerandomized to FIL200+MTX or FIL100+MTX at week 24) through 52 weeks (NCT02889796). Patients with IR to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) received FIL200 or FIL100 or PBO with background stable conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for up to 24 weeks (NCT02873936). PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA). Data are reported as least-squares mean changes from baseline with standard error to the timepoint representing each study’s primary endpoint. All statistical comparisons are of filgotinib groups vs their respective control groups. Results At week 24, among MTX-naïve patients, change from baseline (standard deviation) in HAQ-DI was − 1.00 (0.03; P < 0.001) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.94 (0.04; P < 0.01) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.91 (0.04; P < 0.05) with FIL200 alone compared with − 0.81 (0.03) with MTX alone. At week 12, among MTX-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.69 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs PBO+MTX, P < 0.05 vs ADA) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.57 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs placebo) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.60 (0.04) with ADA vs − 0.40 (0.04) with PBO+MTX. At week 12, among bDMARD-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.50 (0.06; P < 0.001) with FIL200+csDMARD and − 0.46 (0.05; P < 0.001) with FIL100+csDMARD vs − 0.19 (0.06) with placebo+csDMARD. Changes in SF-36 PCS and MCS, FACIT-Fatigue, WPAI, and PtGA tended to favor filgotinib over PBO, MTX, and ADA. Greater proportions of patients experienced clinically meaningful differences with either dosage of FIL in combination with csDMARDs (including MTX) and with FIL200 monotherapy vs comparators. Conclusions Filgotinib provided improvements in PROs across patient populations. These findings suggest filgotinib can be an effective treatment option for patients with insufficient response to MTX or bDMARDs and patients who are MTX-naïve. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, FINCH 1, NCT02889796, first posted September 7, 2016; FINCH 2, NCT02873936, first posted August 22, 2016, retrospectively registered; FINCH 3, NCT02886728, first posted September 1, 2016, retrospectively registered.

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcomes data in patients with psoriatic arthritis from a randomised trial of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapy or in combination

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001484 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. e001484

Author(s):

Vibeke Strand ◽

Philip J Mease ◽

Ervant J Maksabedian Hernandez ◽

Bradley S Stolshek ◽

Lyrica X H Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psoriatic Arthritis ◽

Global Assessment ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Short Form ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Randomised Trial ◽

Patient Global Assessment ◽

Normative Values ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Patient Reported

ObjectivesWe examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in The Study of Etanercept And Methotrexate in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA); a 48-week, phase 3, randomised controlled trial that compared outcomes with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, and MTX+ etanercept in patients with PsA.MethodsEfficacy endpoints included: mean changes from baseline and proportion of patients who reported improvements≥minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 24 in treatment groups for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Patient Global Assessment of Joint Pain (PtGAJP) and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), and Mental Component Summary, and eight domain scores. PROs were analysed as reported (observed), without multiplicity adjustment; therefore, p values are descriptive.ResultsAt week 24, patients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept combination reported greater improvements (p≤0.05) in PtGA, PtGAJP and SF-36 PCS scores compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. Compared with MTX monotherapy, higher proportions of patients receiving etanercept monotherapy and combination therapy reported improvements≥MCID in PtGA (etanercept vs MTX, p=0.005) and PtGAJP (MTX +etanercept vs MTX, p=0.038). Across PROs, proportions of patients reporting scores≥age and gender-matched normative values at week 24 ranged from 20.8% to 51.0% with MTX monotherapy, 30.9% to 48.8% with etanercept monotherapy, and 30.6% to 52.3% with MTX+ etanercept combination.ConclusionsPatients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept reported greater improvements from baseline in several PROs compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. PROs should be incorporated in discussions between patients and clinicians regarding their treatment choices as they can help determine which treatments are more beneficial in patients with PsA.

Download Full-text

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

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keab247.123 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Maya H Buch ◽

David Walker ◽

Patrick D W Kiely ◽

Christopher J Edwards ◽

Jane Barry ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Activity ◽

Short Form ◽

Health Assessment ◽

Physical Component Score ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Research Support ◽

Reactive Protein ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Moderate Disease ◽

Sf 36

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

Download Full-text