scholarly journals Canadian Adalimumab Post-Marketing Observational Epidemiological Study Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): 12-Month Results of Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab and nbDMARDs

2022 ◽  
pp. jrheum.200609
Author(s):  
Majed Mustafa Khraishi ◽  
Valencia P. Remple ◽  
Samuel Silverberg ◽  
Jacqueline C. Stewart ◽  
Brandusa Florica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Lower Baseline ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
A Current ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug

Objective COMPLETE-PsA was an observational study of biologic-naïve Canadian adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab or a non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARDs) regimen, after inadequate response/intolerance to a current nbDMARD treatment regimen. The aim of this analysis was to assess 12-month effectiveness of adalimumab versus nbDMARDs. Methods Patients enrolled between March 2012 and November 2017 were included. The following clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes were collected/calculated per routine care: DAPSA28, DAS28, ESR, CRP, MDGA, PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-12, enthesitis, dactylitis, BSA, and time to achieving ACR50, ACR70 and modified MDA (mMDA). Results Two hundred seventy-seven adalimumab-treated and 148 nbDMARD-treated patients were included. At baseline, adalimumab-treated patients were less likely to be employed; had longer morning stiffness; higher DAPSA28, DAS28, MDGA, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI; and lower prevalence of dactylitis (all p<0.05). Adalimumab-treated patients showed lower baseline-adjusted DAPSA28 (16.5 vs. 26.6), DAS28 (2.8 vs. 3.9), MDGA (25.3 vs. 37.1), and ESR (10.2 vs. 15.4 mm/hr) after 3 months compared to nbDMARD-treated patients, with observed improvements maintained to month 12. Time to achievement of ACR50, ACR70, and mMDA was significantly (p<0.01) shorter among adalimumab-treated patients, with the likelihood of having dactylitis [OR: 0.4 (0.2–0.6)] and BSA<3% [2.7 (1.5–5.0)] significantly lower and higher, respectively. Switching to another biologic was less likely in adalimumab-treated vs. nbDMARD -treated patients (HR [95% CI]: 0.3 [0.2-0.5]). Conclusion In a real-world Canadian PsA population, adalimumab was more effective than nbDMARDs at reducing disease activity and the severity of skin involvement and demonstrated higher retention.

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

Rheumatology ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden—a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Kurt de Vlam ◽  
Jose A Covarrubias-Cobos ◽  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Dafna D Gladman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Placebo Patient ◽  
Pain Patient ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]).MethodsPatients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments.ResultsAt month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab.ConclusioncsDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3.

scholarly journals AB0555 IMPACT OF ADALIMUMAB VERSUS NON-BIOLOGIC THERAPY ON CLINICAL AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS OVER 24 MONTHS – RESULTS OF THE COMPLETE-PsA CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1312.2-1313
Author(s):  
M. Khraishi ◽  
S. Silverberg ◽  
Y. Setty ◽  
M. C. Laliberté ◽  
L. Bessette
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Patient Reported

Background:COMPLETE-PsA was a Canadian observational study of biologic-naïve adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or conventional systemic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) after switch from a previous conventional therapy.Objectives:To compare the impact of ADA vs csDMARDs on clinical and patient-reported outcomes due to PsA over 24 months.Methods:Eligible patients were biologic naïve adults with active PsA who required change in their treatment due to inadequate response or non-tolerance, as per treating physician judgement. Patients were enrolled between July/2011 and December/2017 and followed for a maximum 24 months. Treatment was as per routine care. Outcome measures included tender/swollen joint count (TJC/SJC), morning stiffness (min/day), patient’s global assessment of disease activity (PtGA) and pain (both 100 mm VAS), quality of life (DLQI), and functional disability (HAQ-DI). Outcome changes over time were evaluated using multivariable models adjusting for baseline measures. Achievement of modified minimal disease activity [mMDA, 5/7 of: TJC and SJC ≤1 each, psoriasis BSA ≤3%, pain ≤15 (VAS, mm), PtGA ≤20, HAQ-DI ≤0.5, and no enthesitis], and presence of enthesitis and dactylitis, were assessed descriptively. Analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population.Results:A total of 277 ADA and 148 csDMARD-treated patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 61.7% of ADA and 81.1% of csDMARD patients reported concomitant methotrexate. Compared to the csDMARD group, ADA-treated patients demonstrated significantly (p<0.05) greater baseline disease severity with respect to mean (SD) joint count [TJC: 8.9 (6.2) vs. 7.4 (6.6); SJC: 7.4 (5.0) vs. 5.9 (4.6)], morning stiffness [83.5 (98.2) vs. 61.8 (77.4) min/day], PtGA [56.1 (24.1) vs. 45.1 (24.7) mm], pain [58.5 (24.3) vs. 50.1 (24.0) mm], DLQI scores [6.1 (6.9) vs. 4.3 (5.3)] and HAQ-DI [1.1 (0.6) vs. 0.8 (0.6)]. The rate of baseline mMDA was slightly lower for ADA patients (4.3% vs. 7.4%; p=0.178). Baseline prevalence of enthesitis was comparable (ADA: 28.4% vs. csDMARD: 23.4%; p=0.276), while dactylitis was significantly more prevalent for csDMARD patients (26.2% vs. 36.3%; p=0.031).Overall effect of treatment group, over 24 months, significantly (p<0.05) favored the ADA vs. csDMARD-treated patients for TJC [estimate (95%CI): -2.4 (-3.4, -1.4)] SJC [-1.8 (-2.5, -1.2)], PtGA [-3.7 (-9.3, 1.9)], DLQI [-1.5 (-2.5, -0.5)], and HAQ-DI [-0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)] (Figure 1). There was no significant difference for morning stiffness and pain.At month 24, statistically comparable (p>0.05) baseline-adjusted values (the least square means: LSM) were observed for ADA- vs. csDMARD-treated patients for TJC [LSM (95%CI): 1.8 (1.2, 2.4) vs. 3.0 (2.1, 3.8)], SJC [1.2 (0.8, 1.7) vs. 2.1 (1.5, 2.7)], morning stiffness [32.4 (19.1, 45.6) vs. 29.9 (11.1, 48.6) min/day], PtGA [31.6 (28.1, 35.2) vs. 36.9 (31.8, 41.9) mm], pain [35.3 (31.5, 39.0) vs. 38.4 (33.1, 43.7) mm], DLQI [2.9 (2.2, 3.6) vs. 2.9 (2.0, 3.8)], and HAQ-DI [0.7 (0.6, 0.8) vs. 0.9 (0.8, 1.0)].Achievement of mMDA at month 24 was reported by 34.1% and 34.9% of ADA- and csDMARD-treated patients, respectively (p=0.892). Rates of dactylitis (10.6% vs. 10.0%) and enthesitis (9.6% vs. 14.4%) were comparable in the ADA vs. csDMARDs groups respectively.Conclusion:The results of this real-world Canadian study indicate a physician selection bias for treatment with ADA for PsA patients with more severe disease burden, indicated by greater baseline disease activity and PROs. ADA-treated patients experienced a greater treatment effect over 24 months compared to csDMARD-treated patients. However, despite the greater treatment effect of ADA, residual disease burden in the two groups was comparable at 24 months.Acknowledgements:The authors wish to acknowledge JSS Medical Research for their contribution to the statistical analysis, medical writing, and editorial support during the preparation of this abstract. AbbVie provided funding to JSS Medical Research for this work.Disclosure of Interests:Majed Khraishi Speakers bureau: Speaker for AbbVie, Consultant of: Consultant for AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Principal Investigator for AbbVie, Samuel Silverberg Consultant of: Consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer, Yatish Setty Consultant of: Advisory Board meetings with AbbVie and Janssen, Marie-Claude Laliberté Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Speaker for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Consultant of: Consultant for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Fresenius Kabi, Grant/research support from: Investigator for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes of Upadacitinib Versus Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 12-Week Results of a Phase 3 Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bergman ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Naomi Martin ◽  
Jessica L Suboticki ◽  
Debbie Goldschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Activity Impairment ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Modifying

Abstract Background In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized clinical trial evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA who have inadequate response or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARD-IR).Methods: Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg once daily) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient’s assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), duration and severity of morning stiffness, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to week 12 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests.Results: Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. Thirty-two percent received >1 bDMARD and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA treatment showed significantly greater improvements than ABA treatment in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, WPAI activity impairment domain, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and physical component summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05). Significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05). The proportions of patients achieving MCID in the remaining PROs were similar between groups.Conclusions: In this study, treatment with UPA or ABA resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs at week 12 in patients with active RA. UPA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health, and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI compared with ABA.Trial registration: NCT03086343, March 22, 2017

scholarly journals POS0919 BIMEKIZUMAB SHOWS SUSTAINED LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2B STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 720.2-721
Author(s):  
X. Baraliakos ◽  
M. Dougados ◽  
K. Gaffney ◽  
R. Sengupta ◽  
M. Magrey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Full Analysis

Background:Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, has demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated over a period up to 96 weeks.1,2Objectives:To report 3-year interim patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active AS treated with BKZ in a phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE AGILE; NCT02963506) and its open-label extension (OLE; NCT03355573).Methods:BE AGILE study design has been described previously.1 Patients treated with BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) at Week 48 in BE AGILE were eligible for OLE entry. All OLE patients received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Outcome measures are reported for the OLE full analysis set (patients who entered the OLE and had ≥1 dose of BKZ and ≥1 valid efficacy variable measurement in the OLE), and include: BASDAI, BASDAI50 responder rate, BASFI, fatigue (BASDAI Q1), morning stiffness (mean of BASDAI Q5 + 6), total spinal pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]), SF-36 PCS and MCS, and ASQoL. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI; based on the missing at random assumption) for continuous variables and non-responder imputation (NRI) for dichotomous variables.Results:262/303 (86%) patients randomised at BE AGILE study baseline (BL) completed Week 48 on BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg, of whom 255/262 (97%) entered the OLE (full analysis set: 254). From baseline to Week 48 in BE AGILE, BKZ-treated patients showed clinically relevant improvements in disease activity (BASDAI, BASDAI50), physical function (BASFI), fatigue, morning stiffness, spinal pain, and quality of life (SF-36 PCS and MCS, ASQoL) (Figure 1). Group-level improvements in all reported continuous efficacy measures exceeded published minimally important difference (MID), minimum clinically important improvement (MCII), and/or minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds (Figure 1).3,4 Efficacy in all reported outcome measures was maintained or continued to improve from Week 48 to Week 144 or 156 (Figure 1).Conclusion:BKZ treatment was associated with sustained and consistent efficacy in patients with active AS over 3 years, including patient-reported disease activity, physical function, fatigue, morning stiffness, spinal pain, and quality of life.References:[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604.[2]Baraliakos X. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72 (suppl 10).[3]Ogdie A. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72 (S10):47–71.[4]Maruish ME. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey (3rd ed). 2011; Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Editorial services were provided by Costello Medical.Disclosure of Interests:Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Karl Gaffney Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Raj Sengupta Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, UCB Pharma, Marina Magrey Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Natasha de Peyrecave Employee of: UCB Pharma, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Valerie Ciaravino Employee of: UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document