Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (SELECT-AXIS 1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial

BACKGROUND

The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group, phase 2/3 study, SELECT-AXIS 1, enrolled adults in 62 sites in 20 countries. Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis, fulfilled modified New York criteria, were previously untreated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and had inadequate response to at least two or intolerance or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to take oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or oral placebo for the 14-week period 1; only period 1 data are reported here. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome measure of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response at week 14. Analyses were done in the full analysis set of patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03178487.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 30, 2017, and Oct 15, 2018, 187 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (93 patients) or to placebo (94 patients), and 178 (95%) patients (89 in the upadacitinib group and 89 in the placebo group) completed period 1 on study drug (by the completion date of Jan 21, 2019). Significantly more patients had an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response in the upadacitinib group versus in the placebo group at week 14 (48 [52%] of 93 patients vs 24 [26%] of 94 patients; p=0·0003; treatment difference 26% [95% CI 13-40]). Adverse events were reported in 58 (62%) of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group versus 52 (55%) of 94 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in the upadacitinib group was increased creatine phosphokinase (eight [9%] of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group vs two [2%] of 94 patients with placebo). No serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancy, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported; one serious adverse event was reported in each group.

INTERPRETATION

Upadacitinib 15 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who had an inadequate response or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These data support the further investigation of upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Retrospective Claims Analysis Indirectly Comparing Medication Adherence and Persistence Between Intravenous Biologics and Oral Small-Molecule Therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Introduction

Patients’ adherence to and persistence on treatment for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can vary, depending on type and distribution of disease and treatment modality. We aim to identify differences in adherence and persistence with treatments with different administration routes (intravenous vs oral) in IBD.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis of a claims database of adult patients diagnosed with IBD or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who began treatment with vedolizumab, tofacitinib, or infliximab from January 2015 through December 2015. Adherence evaluated by proportion of days covered (PDC) and cumulative days with gaps at least 20% beyond expected interval (CG20) using multivariable generalized linear equation models. Persistence assessed as time to treatment discontinuation over 12 months of follow-up using Kaplan–Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models; proportion of persistent patients determined via multivariable logistic regression. Indirect comparisons across disease states adjusted using infliximab data.

Results

After indirect adjustment by disease, mean PDC difference was significantly higher (difference of 4.7%; P = 0.0376) and mean CG20 was lower (difference of 15 days; P = 0.0646) but not statistically significant in vedolizumab/IBD than tofacitinib/RA.

Conclusion

We describe a novel adjustment method for interdisease treatment differences using infliximab treatment patterns to bridge differences between IBD and RA. After adjustment, adherence was higher with infusions than oral medications, which may affect outcomes. Indirect comparisons between vedolizumab and tofacitinib are not generalizable and should be confirmed in tofacitinib-treated IBD patients.

Funding

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01037-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient Perspectives on Intravenous Biologics for Rheumatologic Disease

OBJECTIVE

Two surveys were conducted with patients with rheumatologic diseases to evaluate perceptions of different routes of administration (intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous [SC]) for biologic therapy.

METHODS

In Survey I, patient preferences toward biologic treatment were evaluated at a rheumatology practice in Buffalo, New York. In Survey II, Canadian patients enrolled in the BioAdvance patient support program and scheduled to receive IV biologic therapy were asked about their opinions of IV treatment.

RESULTS

In Survey I, 243 rheumatology patients participated. Median patient age was 60 years, 76% were female, and 44% were naive to treatment with biologic agents. Among biologic-naive patients, the majority (56%) were open to either SC or IV treatment; biologic-naive women were more likely than men to express a preference for the route of administration. In Survey II, 1,598 patients from the BioAdvance program (including 306 rheumatology patients) completed the full survey. Among the rheumatology patients, the median age was 49 years, 58% were female, and 61% had not previously taken biologics before enrolling in the BioAdvance program. The median rating of IV favorability (on a 10-point scale, with higher numbers indicating increased favorability) recalled by rheumatology patients was 5 prior to their first program infusion, which increased to 9 after multiple treatment infusions.

CONCLUSION

These survey results indicate that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are generally open to IV treatment and express high satisfaction with IV therapy. Additional patient and provider education may improve shared decision-making regarding biologic therapy administration options.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

Objective.

To summarize patients’ preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods.

We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients’ preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies.

Results.

From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusion.

Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Medication adherence and cost-related medication non-adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A cross-sectional study

AIM

First, to assess the clinical characteristics and medication adherence to oral rheumatoid arthritis (RA) medications in patients with RA. Second, to examine adherence determinants with a focus on the effect of medication out-of-pocket (OOP) costs on medication adherence to oral RA medications. Lastly, to examine cost-related medication non-adherence (CRN) in patients with RA.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of patients with RA was conducted at rheumatology outpatient clinics in Shiraz, Iran. The data collection survey consisted of 5 sections including demographic questions, disease-related questions, Compliance Questionnaire Rheumatology (CQR), CRN questions and an open-ended question. SPSS version 24 was used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 308 completed surveys were collected. Adherence to oral RA medications was 40.3%. Just under 20% of participants were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) users and these bDMARDs users were 0.82 times less likely to be adherent to their oral RA medications compared to non-bDMARDs users (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between OOP costs and adherence to oral RA medications (P > 0.05). However, 28.7% of participants reported not refilling, delaying to refill, skipping doses or taking smaller doses due to cost. In findings of the open-ended question, medication costs and affordability were the most commonly mentioned barriers to medication adherence.

CONCLUSION

Non-adherence to oral RA medications was prevalent among Iranian patients with RA and OOP costs were a barrier to medication adherence.

Tofacitinib: A Review in Psoriatic Arthritis

Tofacitinib (Xeljanz^®) is the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved at a dosage of 5 mg twice daily (BID) in the EU and the USA for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), where it is indicated in combination with methotrexate for patients who have had an inadequate response or who have been intolerant to a prior therapy with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Two well-designed phase III trials (OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond) in patients with PsA with or without prior tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy showed that tofacitinib 5 mg BID (co-administered with methotrexate or another approved conventional synthetic DMARD) significantly improved the key clinical signs/symptoms and disability associated with PsA after 3 months of treatment, while also improving skin psoriasis, enthesitis, dactylitis, physical function and fatigue. According to interim data, the improvements in clinical signs/symptoms were maintained for up to 30 months in the ongoing long-term extension study OPAL Balance, with minimal radiographic progression seen after 12 months' therapy in the OPAL Broaden study. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID had an acceptable tolerability profile, with low incidences of serious infections, malignancies, cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal perforations over 36 months. Changes in laboratory parameters generally remained stable over 36 months of treatment. Although further studies are required to more definitively establish its efficacy and safety, currently available evidence indicates that tofacitinib expands the treatment options available for the treatment of PsA in patients who have had an inadequate response or who have been intolerant to a prior DMARD therapy.

Pooled Phase III safety analysis of sufentanil sublingual tablets for short-term treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain

Aim: To evaluate the pooled safety of sufentanil sublingual tablets (SSTs) administered at 30-mcg dose equivalents over ≤72 h for moderate-to-severe acute pain management in medically supervised settings. Patients & methods: Safety data from SST 30 mcg Phase III studies were pooled with an additional patient subset from studies in which two SST 15 mcg were self-administered within 20-25 min (30-mcg dose-equivalent). Results: Analyses included 804 patients. Median (range) SST 30-mcg dosing over 24 h was 7.0 (1-15) tablets. Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 60.5% (SST) and 61.4% (placebo) and treatment-related AEs by 43.8% (SST) and 33.5% (placebo; 10.3% difference; 95% CI: 2.0-18.6) of patients. No dose-dependent increase in oxygen desaturation was observed with SST. Conclusion: SST was well-tolerated, with most AEs considered mild or moderate in severity.

Preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although patients have different treatment preferences, these individual preferences could often be grouped in subgroups with shared preferences. Knowledge of these subgroups as well as factors associated with subgroup membership supports health care professionals in the understanding of what matters to patients in clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To identify subgroups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on their shared preferences toward disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and to identify factors associated with subgroup membership.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment to determine DMARD preferences of adult patients with RA was designed based on a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. In this multicenter study, patients were asked to state their preferred choice between two different hypothetical treatment options, described by seven DMARD characteristics with three levels within each characteristic. Latent class analyses and multinomial logistic regressions were used to identify subgroups and the characteristics (patient characteristics, disease-related variables, and beliefs about medicines) associated with subgroup membership.

RESULTS

Among 325 participating patients with RA, three subgroups were identified: an administration-driven subgroup (45.6%), a benefit-driven subgroup (29.7%), and a balanced subgroup (24.7%). Patients who were currently using biologic DMARDs were significantly more likely to belong to the balanced subgroup than the administration-driven subgroup (relative risk ratio (RRR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89). Highly educated patients were significantly more likely to belong to the benefit-driven subgroup than the balanced subgroup (RRR: 11.4, 95% CI: 0.97-133.6). Patients' medication-related concerns did not contribute significantly to subgroup membership, whereas a near-significant association was found between patients' beliefs about medication necessity and their membership of the benefit-driven subgroup (RRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23).

CONCLUSION

Three subgroups with shared preferences were identified. Only biologic DMARD use and educational level were associated with subgroup membership. Integrating patient's medication preferences in pharmacotherapy decisions may improve the quality of decisions and possibly medication adherence.

Tofacitinib in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: position statement of experts of the Polish Society for Rheumatology

Tofacitinib is a newly approved small-molecule targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. The drug was designed as a selective and specific inhibitor of pro-inflammatory receptor signalling. Tofacitinib inhibits the process of intracellular signalling from the receptor to the cellular nucleus and inhibits the inflammation process via a new pathway (inhibition of the Janus kinases), which is unavailable to biological medicines. Tofacitinib has been approved for use in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe active RA. The drug may be used in combination with methotrexate or another conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or in monotherapy. The efficacy of tofacitinib has been confirmed in several clinical trials. The drug inhibits radiographic progression of the disease. The innovative mechanism of action of tofacitinib is a noteworthy feature because it offers hope of effective treatment for patients who fail to respond to other drugs. The presented article discusses the mechanism of action and the clinical application of tofacitinib. Tofacitinib represents a new group of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs that can be placed on an equal footing with biological drugs already available.

Tofacitinib, an Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitor: Pooled Efficacy and Safety Analyses in an Australian Rheumatoid Arthritis Population

Introduction

In Australia, there is an unmet need for improved treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. To provide an overview of key study outcomes for tofacitinib in Australian patients, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in the Australian subpopulation of global RA phase III and long-term extension (LTE) studies.

Methods

Data were pooled from the Australian subpopulation of four phase III studies and one LTE study (database not locked at cut-off date: January 2016). Patients in the phase III studies received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), placebo (advancing to tofacitinib at months 3 or 6), or adalimumab, with background methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Patients in the LTE study received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID. Efficacy endpoints were American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates, and change from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)] and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs. AEs of special interest and laboratory parameters were analyzed in the LTE study.

Results

Across phase III studies (N = 100), ACR response rates and improvements in DAS28-4(ESR) and HAQ-DI scores were numerically greater with tofacitinib vs. placebo at month 3, and increased until month 12. The results were sustained in the LTE study (N = 99) after 60 months’ observation. In general, the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib were similar to those of the global RA population.

Conclusions

In Australian patients with RA, tofacitinib therapy demonstrated sustained efficacy and consistent safety over ≥ 60 months’ treatment.

Funding

Pfizer Inc.

Trial registration numbers (all ClinicalTrials.gov)

NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT00413699.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-018-0118-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical characteristics and patient-reported outcomes in patients with inadequately controlled rheumatoid arthritis despite ongoing treatment

Background

Despite the wide array of treatments available for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), some patients continue to report unmet clinical needs. We investigated the extent of inadequate disease control in patients with RA.

Methods

Data were drawn from the Adelphi 2014 RA Disease-Specific Program in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists provided patient demographics, comorbidities, satisfaction with RA control and other clinical details. Patients reported their level of satisfaction and completed the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. Patients had been on their current therapy ≥3 months and had 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28) reported. Adequately controlled (DAS28 ≤3.2) and inadequately controlled (DAS28 >3.2) patient cohorts were compared using univariate tests.

Results

Of 1147 patients, 74% were women, the mean age was 52 years and the mean time since RA diagnosis was 7 years. Twenty-seven percent of patients had inadequately controlled RA, whereas 73% had adequately controlled RA. Inadequately controlled patients were more affected clinically versus adequately controlled patients; 69% vs 13% had moderate/severe RA, the current level of pain was 4.6 vs 2.3, and 67% vs 41% experienced flares, respectively (all p<0.0001). Inadequately controlled patients had higher rates of depression (16% vs 5%; p<0.0001), worse health state, greater work and activity impairment, and lower satisfaction rates among the patients and their physicians than the adequately controlled cohort.

Conclusion

RA was insufficiently controlled in over a quarter of patients despite their current therapy and this had a negative impact on the patients.

A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively describe the identification, refinement, and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) regarding disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach, consisting of three consecutive steps: a literature review, expert recommendations, and focus groups. Attributes and levels were identified by a scoping review and compiled into a list that was evaluated on its relevance by an expert panel. The list that resulted thereafter was used to inform three focus groups, including 23 patients with RA. New attributes and levels could be identified during the focus groups. Also, a ranking exercise was performed. The patients individually ranked the attributes (ie, the ones on the list and newly identified attributes) by relevance. The patients' individual rankings were summed to derive a ranking at group level and make an a priori selection of the most relevant attributes. The group discussions were transcribed for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen attributes, each specified by two to seven levels, were identified by the scoping review. The expert recommendations resulted in the removal of one attribute. Furthermore, two new attributes and levels were identified and two attributes were split into two. One new attribute was identified during the focus groups. The results of the ranking exercise and qualitative analysis led to the refinement and selection of the following attributes: route of administration, frequency of administration, chance of efficacy, onset of action, risk of serious infections, risk of liver injury, and risk of cancer. Each attribute was specified by three levels.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the limited literature on the development of attributes and levels. Future research should pay more attention to a comprehensive description of this process. It ensures transparency and thereby allows researchers to judge a DCE's quality and generalizability.

Patient preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: results from the national cross-sectional LERACS study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the treatment preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and determine whether these preferences are related to specific disease characteristics.

METHOD

A national survey was designed to collect demographic, disease, treatment, and preference data on RA patients enrolled in 7 private and university hospital clinics in Lebanon. Associations between patient factors and treatment preferences for RA were analyzed by χ² or Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 693 patients (83% female; 67% aged 41-70 years) consulting 7 trained rheumatologists completed the survey. Most patients (80%) had established RA >24 months, and approximately one-third (34%) were in remission according to the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28). Most (87%) were receiving oral agents (60% oral only). Almost two-thirds of patients (64%) expressed a preference for oral treatments, and more than half (53%) ranked doctor's advice as the most influential factor when choosing treatment. In univariable analysis, health coverage, radiographic damage, disease duration, current therapy, and previous side effects were significantly associated with treatment preference. In multivariable analyses, only radiographic damage and current route of administration were independently associated with preference (both P<0.001), with patients with no radiographic damage and those on oral-only therapy being more likely to prefer oral agents.

CONCLUSION

RA patients expressed a preference for oral rather than subcutaneous/intravenous-administered drugs. Understanding patients' preferences may help to inform policymaker decisions.