Background:Among treatment options for PsA, IL-12/23 inhibition with UST was the first new biologic mode of action after TNFi. Few real-world data comparing UST with TNFi are available.Objectives:Comparison of UST and TNFi treatment effectiveness within the prospectively followed PsABio cohort at 12-month (mo) follow-up.Methods:The PsABio study (NCT02627768) evaluates effectiveness, tolerability and persistence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd-line UST or TNFi in PsA. Proportions of patients (pts) reaching MDA/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) LDA/remission are described. Comparison across UST and TNFi cohorts was done on last observation carried forward up to 12 (±3) mo, with non-response imputation for pts who had stopped/switched initial treatment. Logistic regression analysis was used, including propensity score (PS) analysis to adjust for imbalanced prognostic baseline (BL) covariates: country, age, sex, BMI, smoking (yes/no), comorbidities (cardiovascular/metabolic syndrome), PsA type (axial, polyarticular, oligoarticular), psoriasis body surface area (BSA), disease duration, cDAPSA, 12-item PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12), dactylitis, enthesitis, Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) score, line of biologic (b)DMARD, synthetic DMARD use, and steroid or NSAID use.Results:Of 929 eligible pts, 893 had evaluable data at BL and at follow-up; 438 (95.6%) were treated with UST and 455 (96.6%) with TNFi (including stoppers/switchers). UST and TNFi groups had BL differences in mean age (51.0 vs 48.5 years, respectively), concurrent comorbidities (68.7% vs 60.9%), time since diagnosis (7.5 vs 6.2 years), line of treatment (1st-line 45.0% vs 55.2%; 3rd-line 20.5% vs 12.1%), NSAID use (54.8% vs 68.8%), concomitant MTX use (29.9% vs 42.0%) and psoriasis skin involvement (BSA >10% in 26.6% vs 14.8%).In 714 pts with available data, mean (standard deviation) BL cDAPSA was 30.6 (20.2; n=358) for UST and 29.3 (18.6; n=356) for TNFi. Observed data showed differences in proportion of pts achieving MDA/VLDA and cDAPSA LDA/remission in favour of TNFi, but after PS adjustment for BL differences (such as line of therapy, skin psoriasis, concomitant conventional DMARD, etc.), odds ratios for reaching targets at 12 mo did not significantly differ between UST and TNFi groups (Fig. 1).Comparison of 6- and 12-mo unadjusted data showed sustained MDA/VLDA responses with both UST (21.8%) and TNFi (29.5%), with comparable proportions of additional pts achieving these targets between 6 and 12 mo (17.0% and 20.3%, respectively). Sustained efficacy became lower with successive lines of treatment (data not shown).Conclusion:Various factors, including patient characteristics such as comorbidities, influence the physician’s selection of treatment modality for patients needing a bDMARD. Our real-world results demonstrate differences in observed clinical effectiveness between UST and TNFi. However, after PS adjustment for a number of BL differences, clinical results at 12 mo were comparable between UST and TNFi groups. Data at 12 mo also show sustained response with both UST and TNFi treatment, as well as a similar rate of pts achieving targets after 6 to 12 mo of treatment.Acknowledgments:This study was funded by Janssen.Disclosure of Interests: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, 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, 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, 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, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, 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, 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, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB
Evaluating renal cell carcinoma treatment options using real world data: Findings from an oncology survey across seven countries
