Key Considerations for Designing Clinical Studies to Evaluate Digital Health Solutions

Evidence of clinical impact is critical to unlock the potential of digital health solutions (DHSs), yet many solutions are failing to deliver positive clinical results. We argue in this viewpoint that this failure is linked to current approaches to DHS evaluation design, which neglect numerous key characteristics (KCs) requiring specific scientific and design considerations. We first delineate the KCs of DHSs: (1) they are implemented at health care system and patient levels; (2) they are "complex" interventions; (3) they can drive multiple clinical outcomes indirectly through a multitude of smaller clinical benefits; (4) their mechanism of action can vary between individuals and change over time based on patient needs; and (5) they develop through short, iterative cycles-optimally within a real-world use context. Following our objective to drive better alignment between clinical evaluation design and the unique traits of DHSs, we then provide methodological suggestions that better address these KCs, including tips on mechanism-of-action mapping, alternative randomization methods, control-arm adaptations, and novel end-point selection, as well as innovative methods utilizing real-world data and platform research.

Nanomaterials in the treatment and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis: Advanced approaches

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic inflammatory condition that affects persons between the ages of 20 and 40, causes synovium inflammation, cartilage loss, and joint discomfort as some of its symptoms. Diagnostic techniques for RA have traditionally been split into two main categories: imaging and serological tests. However, significant issues are associated with both of these methods. Imaging methods are costly and only helpful in people with obvious symptoms, while serological assays are time-consuming and require specialist knowledge. The drawbacks of these traditional techniques have led to the development of novel diagnostic approaches. The unique properties of nanomaterials make them well-suited as biosensors. Their compact dimensions are frequently cited for their outstanding performance, and their positive impact on the signal-to-noise ratio accounts for their capacity to detect biomarkers at low detection limits, with excellent repeatability and a robust dynamic range. In this review, we discuss the use of nanomaterials in RA theranostics. Scientists have recently synthesized, characterized, and modified nanomaterials and biomarkers commonly used to enhance RA diagnosis and therapy capabilities. We hope to provide scientists with the promising potential that nanomaterials hold for future theranostics and offer suggestions on further improving nanomaterials as biosensors, particularly for detecting autoimmune disorders.

Treatment Patterns and Effectiveness of Tofacitinib in Patients Initiating Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From the CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

OBJECTIVE

This real-world analysis assessed baseline demographics/characteristics and treatment patterns/effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating tofacitinib (TOF) in the US CorEvitas RA Registry.

METHODS

The primary analysis of this study included patients with RA initiating TOF with a 12-month follow-up visit from November 2012 to January 2021. Outcomes included baseline demographics/characteristics and TOF initiation/discontinuation reasons, treatment patterns, and effectiveness (disease activity and patient-reported outcomes [PROs] at 12 months); the primary effectiveness outcome was Clinical Disease Activity Index low disease activity (CDAI LDA). All data, analyzed descriptively, were stratified by TOF regimen (monotherapy vs combination therapy), line of therapy (second- to fourth-line), time of initiation (2012-2014, 2015-2017, or 2018-2020), and dose (5 mg twice daily vs 11 mg once daily).

RESULTS

Of 2874 patients with RA who initiated TOF, 1298 had a qualifying 12-month follow-up visit; of these, 43.1% were monotherapy and 66.5% were fourth-line therapy. Overall, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (40.8%) were the most common treatment immediately prior to TOF initiation. The most common reason for TOF initiation (among those with a reason) was lack/loss of efficacy of prior treatment (67.7%). Overall, at 12 months, 31.9% and 10.1% had achieved CDAI LDA and remission, respectively; 22.4%, 10.4%, and 5% had achieved ≥ 20%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology core set measures, respectively; and improvements in PROs were observed. Effectiveness was generally similar across TOF stratifications.

CONCLUSION

TOF effectiveness (CDAI LDA) was observed in a US real-world setting of patients with RA regardless of TOF regimen, line of therapy, time of initiation, and dose. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04721808).

Exclusion of older adults from randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess eligibility criteria that either explicitly or implicitly exclude older patients from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RA.

METHODS

Our analysis included RCTs of pharmacological interventions registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and started between 2013 and 2022. Co-primary outcomes were proportions of trials with an upper age limit and the eligibility criteria indirectly increasing risk of the exclusion of older adults.

RESULTS

A total of 143/290 (49%) trials had an upper age limit of 85 years or less. Multivariable analysis showed that the odds of an upper age limit were significantly lower in trials performed in the USA [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.34; CI, 0.12-0.99; P = 0.04] and intercontinental trials (aOR, 0.4; CI, 0.18-0.87; P = 0.02). In total, 154/290 (53%) trials had at least one eligibility criterion implicitly excluding older adults. These included specific comorbidities (n = 114; 39%), compliance concerns (n = 67; 23%), and broad and vague exclusion criteria (n = 57; 20%); however, we found no significant associations between these criteria and trial characteristics. Overall, 217 (75%) trials either explicitly or implicitly excluded older patients; we also noted a trend towards increasing proportion of these trials over time. Only one trial (0.3%) enrolled solely patients aged 65 and older.

CONCLUSION

Older adults are commonly excluded from RCTs in RA based on both age limits and other eligibility criteria. This seriously limits the evidence base for the treatment of older patients in clinical practice. Given the growing prevalence of RA in older adults, relevant RCTs should be more inclusive to them.

Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world users of 17 biologics approved for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: An external validity analysis of 66,639 biologic users from the Italian VALORE project

To date, no population-based studies have specifically explored the external validity of pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of biologics simultaneously for a broad spectrum of immuno-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). The aims of this study were, firstly, to compare the patients' characteristics and median treatment duration of biologics approved for IMIDs between RCTs' and real-world setting (RW); secondly, to assess the extent of biologic users treated for IMIDs in the real-world setting that would not have been eligible for inclusion into pivotal RCT for each indication of use. Using the Italian VALORE distributed database (66,639 incident biologic users), adult patients with IMIDs treated with biologics in the Italian real-world setting were substantially older (mean age ± SD: 50 ± 15 years) compared to those enrolled in pivotal RCTs (45 ± 15 years). In the real-world setting, certolizumab pegol was more commonly used by adult women with psoriasis/ankylosing spondylitis (F/M ratio: 1.8-1.9) compared to RCTs (F/M ratio: 0.5-0.6). The median treatment duration (weeks) of incident biologic users in RW was significantly higher than the duration of pivotal RCTs in almost all indications for use and most biologics (4-100 vs. 6-167). Furthermore, almost half (46.4%) of biologic users from RW settings would have been ineligible for inclusion in the respective indication-specific pivotal RCTs. The main reasons were: advanced age, recent history of cancer and presence of other concomitant IMIDs. These findings suggest that post-marketing surveillance of biologics should be prioritized for those patients.

Crimson clues: advancing endometriosis detection and management with novel blood biomarkers

Endometriosis is an inflammatory condition affecting approximately 10% of the female-born population. Despite its prevalence, the lack of noninvasive biomarkers has contributed to an established global diagnostic delay. The intricate pathophysiology of this enigmatic disease may leave signatures in the blood, which, when detected, can be used as noninvasive biomarkers. This review provides an update on how investigators are utilizing the established disease pathways and innovative methodologies, including genome-wide association studies, next-generation sequencing, and machine learning, to unravel the clues left in the blood to develop blood biomarkers. Many blood biomarkers show promise in the discovery phase, but because of a lack of standardized and robust methodologies, they rarely progress to the development stages. However, we are now seeing biomarkers being validated with high diagnostic accuracy and improvements in standardization protocols, providing promise for the future of endometriosis blood biomarkers.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Comparative Effectiveness, Time to Discontinuation, and Patient-Reported Outcomes with Baricitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: 2-Year Data from the Multinational, Prospective Observational RA-BE-REAL Study in European Patients

INTRODUCTION

RA-BE-REAL is a 3-year, multinational, prospective, observational study of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) evaluating time to discontinuation of initial RA treatment along with patient baseline characteristics. This study's primary objective was to assess the time to discontinuation of initial baricitinib, any other targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (tsDMARD), or any biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response) over 24 months in a European population.

METHODS

Patients initiated treatment with baricitinib (cohort A) or any bDMARD or tsDMARD (cohort B) for the first time. This study's primary objective was to assess the time to discontinuation of initial baricitinib, any other targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (tsDMARD), or any biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) treatment for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response) over 24 months in a European population. Comparative effectiveness analyses, over 24 months, included time to treatment discontinuation for all causes (excluding sustained clinical response), percentage of patients achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission or low disease activity (LDA), as well as mean changes from baseline for CDAI, pain visual analogue scale, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). For this European subpopulation, comparative analyses were performed using a frequentist model averaging (FMA) framework based on a data-driven machine learning causal inference approach to compare time to discontinuation, effectiveness, rates of remission or LDA, and patient-reported outcomes over 24 months comparing baricitinib with TNFi, as well as non-TNFi and tsDMARD grouped as other mechanism of action (OMA) drugs.

RESULTS

In the European sample of RA-BE-REAL, patients with RA treated with baricitinib experienced fewer discontinuations in comparison to those treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors or OMA. Overall, patients naïve to b/tsDMARDs achieved a higher rate of LDA and remission compared with experienced patients. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with baricitinib achieved LDA compared with b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

This real-world data can better inform clinicians about baricitinib effectiveness and drug survival when prescribing treatment for patients with RA across different subpopulations.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After Switching Between Interleukin-6-Receptor Inhibitors and Janus Kinase Inhibitors: Findings from an Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This observational study evaluated response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL-6Ri) to a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) and vice versa.

METHODS

Adult patients with RA, who initiated IL-6Ri or JAKi (following discontinuation of JAKi or IL-6Ri, respectively) during/after December 2012 and had a 6-month follow-up visit were enrolled. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and the follow-up visit. Continuous outcomes included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), pain, fatigue, tender joint count, swollen joint count, Physician Global Assessment (MDGA), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), and morning stiffness duration. Categorical outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA), remission, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for HAQ, pain, fatigue, MDGA, and PtGA. Continuous outcomes were summarized as mean changes from baseline, and categorical outcomes as response rates. Differences in the outcome measures between groups were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between IL-6Ri (n = 100) and JAKi initiators (n = 129), no significant differences were noted for continuous outcomes. Within both groups, a significant proportion of patients achieved LDA, remission, and MCIDs for other measures, although the odds of achieving LDA were higher among IL-6Ri (vs. JAKi) initiators with moderate-to-severe disease (adjusted odds ratio: 3.30 [1.01, 10.78]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA can achieve improvement in response when switching between IL-6Ri and JAKi. Although both therapies affect the IL-6 pathway, there are distinct mechanisms of action, which likely contribute to their clinical improvement, when reciprocally switched as follow-on treatments.

Transportability of two heart failure trials to a disease registry using individual patient data

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials are the gold-standard for determining therapeutic efficacy, but are often unrepresentative of real-world settings. Statistical transportation methods (hereafter transportation) can partially account for these differences, improving trial applicability without breaking randomization. We transported treatment effects from two heart failure (HF) trials to a HF registry.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Individual-patient-level data from two trials (Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), comparing carvedilol and metoprolol, and digitalis investigation group trial (DIG), comparing digoxin and placebo) and a Scottish HF registry were obtained. The primary end point for both trials was all-cause mortality; composite outcomes were all-cause mortality or hospitalization for COMET and HF-related death or hospitalization for DIG. We performed transportation using regression-based and inverse odds of sampling weights (IOSW) approaches.

RESULTS

Registry patients were older, had poorer renal function and received higher-doses of loop-diuretics than trial participants. For each trial, point estimates were similar for the original and IOSW (e.g., DIG composite outcome: OR 0.75 (0.69, 0.82) vs. 0.73 (0.64, 0.83)). Treatment effect estimates were also similar when examining high-risk (0.64 (0.46, 0.89)) and low-risk registry patients (0.73 (0.61, 0.86)). Similar results were obtained using regression-based transportation.

CONCLUSION

Regression-based or IOSW approaches can be used to transport trial effect estimates to patients administrative/registry data, with only moderate reductions in precision.

The Effect of Low-Dose Glucocorticoids Over Two Years on Weight and Blood Pressure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Individual Patient Data From Five Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Weight gain and hypertension are well known adverse effects of treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials with 2-year interventions allowing concomitant treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

SETTING

12 countries in Europe.

PATIENTS

Early and established RA.

INTERVENTION

Glucocorticoids at 7.5 mg or less prednisone equivalent per day.

MEASUREMENTS

Coprimary end points were differences in change from baseline in body weight and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses. Difference in the change of number of antihypertensive drugs after 2 years was a secondary end point. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done to assess the robustness of primary findings.

RESULTS

A total of 1112 participants were included (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 14.5]; 68% women). Both groups gained weight in 2 years, but glucocorticoids led, on average, to 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.8 kg; P < 0.001) more weight gain than the control treatment. Mean arterial pressure increased by about 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a between-group difference of -0.4 mm Hg (CI, -3.0 to 2.2 mm Hg; P = 0.187). These results were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Most patients did not change the number of antihypertensive drugs, and there was no evidence of differences between groups.

LIMITATION

Body composition was not assessed, and generalizability to non-European regions may be limited.

CONCLUSION

This study provides robust evidence that low-dose glucocorticoids, received over 2 years for the treatment of RA, increase weight by about 1 kg but do not increase blood pressure.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

A JAK Inhibitor for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations.

Meaningful Improvement and Worsening in Patients Who Do Not Achieve Low Disease Activity and Switch Therapy to a New Biologic or Targeted Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug: Results From the CorEvitas RA Registry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the change in disease activity associated with switching from 1 biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) to another in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who did not achieve low disease activity (LDA) after 6 to 12 months of their initial treatment.

METHODS

This observational study included patients from the CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry, who initiated a b/tsDMARD at the index visit (prebaseline), had any clinical disease activity index (CDAI) improvement but did not achieve LDA/remission at the subsequent visit (baseline), and switched therapy at baseline or between baseline and follow-up visits. Regardless of the preswitch CDAI value, 2 thresholds of CDAI change were used to define meaningful improvement and worsening for all patients: ≥6 units and ≥12 units; no meaningful change was defined as any change between -6 to +6 units and -12 to +12 units, based on respective thresholds.

RESULTS

Of 1226 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 93 (7.6%) switched therapy at baseline or between baseline and follow-up, after an inadequate response at the baseline visit. At follow-up, meaningful worsening occurred in 30.1% and 12.9% of switchers, whereas the remaining switchers achieved meaningful improvement (34.4% and 20.4%) or had no meaningful change (35.5% and 66.7%), based on the thresholds of ≥6 and ≥12 units, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rheumatoid arthritis patients, who had not achieved LDA and switched b/tsDMARD, were more likely to have meaningful improvement or no change, rather than meaningful worsening. These data may help some patients overcome their hesitancy to switch therapy, potentially improving clinical outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of TNF inhibitor vs IL-6 receptor inhibitor as monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate in biologic-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis from the CorEvitas RA Registry

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity.

METHODS

Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported.

RESULTS

Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy).

CONCLUSION

This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.

From Bench to Bedside in Rheumatoid Arthritis from the "2022 GISEA International Symposium"

While precision medicine is still a challenge in rheumatic disease, in recent years many advances have been made regarding pathogenesis, the treatment of inflammatory arthropathies, and their interaction. New insight into the role of inflammasome and synovial tissue macrophage subsets as predictors of drug response give hope for future tailored therapeutic strategies and a personalized medicine approach in inflammatory arthropathies. Here, we discuss the main pathogenetic mechanisms and therapeutic approaches towards precision medicine in rheumatoid arthritis from the 2022 International GISEA/OEG Symposium.

Predictors of Remission and Low Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Results From the Follow-up of a Real-World Peruvian Cohort

BACKGROUND

Clinical remission is the goal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management; however, this can be difficult to achieve in several parts of the world. Our objective was to determine predictors of remission and remission/low disease activity (LDA) in RA.

METHODS

A longitudinal real-setting RA cohort was followed up (January 2016-2020). Predictors examined were sex, age at diagnosis, disease duration, socioeconomic status, tobacco use, rheumatoid factor titer, comorbidities (Charlson index), Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score, disability (Multidimensional Disease Health Assessment Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 questionnaire), glucocorticoid dose, biological/target synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and conventional DMARD (c-DMARD) use. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equation models were done to determine predictors of remission (at a given visit) and sustained remission (2 consecutives visits), using the SDAI definition (0 or <3.3). Similarly, remission/LDA (SDAI <11) predictors were examined.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty RA patients included the following: 160 patients (30.2%) achieved remission in at least 1 visit, and 126 patients (23.77%) achieved sustained remission. On the multivariable analysis glucocorticoid dose (odds ratio [OR], 1.060; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.027-1.094; p = 0.004) and current (OR, 2.293; 95% CI, 1.811-2.903; p < 0.001) or past (OR, 1.383; 95% CI, 1.127-1.698; p = 0.002) use of c-DMARDs predicted remission/LDA in at least 1 visit, whereas the SDAI (OR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.942-0.959; p < 0.001), Multidimensional Disease Health Assessment Questionnaire (OR, 0.648; 95% CI, 0.549-0.764; p < 0.001), and age at diagnosis (OR, 0.994; 95% CI, 0.990-0.998; p = 0.004) were negative predictors. As to sustained remission/LDA, current (OR, 2.012; 95% CI, 1.458-2.776: p < 0.001) or past (OR, 1.517; 95% CI, 1.155-1.993; p = 0.003) use of c-DMARDs, having a better Short Form-36 questionnaire physical component summary (OR, 1.022; 95% CI, 1.014-1.029; p < 0.001), and older age at diagnosis (OR, 1.013; 95% CI, 1.003-1.022; p = 0.008) predicted it, whereas SDAI (OR, 0.949; 95% CI, 0.933-0.965; p < 0.001) and medium low/low socioeconomic status (OR, 0.674; 95% CI, 0.500-0.909; p = 0.010) were negative predictors.

CONCLUSION

During follow-up of this real-world RA cohort, c-DMARD use predicted remission and remission/LDA. In contrast, disease activity was a negative predictor.

Comparison of the inhibitory effect of tocilizumab and etanercept on the progression of joint erosion in rheumatoid arthritis treatment

We compared the efficacy of tocilizumab and etanercept in inhibiting radiographic progression of joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis. Overall, 187 patients treated with etanercept or tocilizumab were selected. To adjust for baseline patient characteristics between the tocilizumab and etanercept treatment groups, a propensity score matching was performed. Radiographic progression of joint destruction was compared between patients treated with tocilizumab or etanercept. Clinical disease activity index (CDAI) and modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ) scores at the administration of biologic treatment and after 12 months of tocilizumab and etanercept therapy were measured and compared to radiographical parameters between the groups. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), CDAI, and mHAQ scores improved after 12 months of treatment in the two groups. Proportion of patients with no Sharp erosion score progression was significantly higher with tocilizumab treatment than with etanercept treatment (p = 0.032). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that Sharp erosion score was significantly associated with baseline CDAI (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.099, p = 0.037). Tocilizumab treatment suppressed joint erosion progression compared to etanercept, and the progression correlated with baseline CDAI.

Biologics in severe asthma: the role of real-world evidence from registries

Asthma is one of the most common noncommunicable diseases; in the majority of patients it is well controlled with inhaled bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids, but the management of severe asthma has been a significant challenge historically. The introduction of novel biologic drugs in the past few decades has revolutionised the field, presenting physicians with a variety of biologic drugs with different mechanisms for the treatment of severe asthma.It is of crucial importance to evaluate the effectiveness of these drugs by following their "real-life" effectiveness rather than relying solely on their efficacy, established in carefully designed clinical trials, which therefore do not necessarily match the profile of the real-life patient. Understanding the actual effectiveness of the specific drugs in real-life patients is a crucial part of tailoring the right drugs to the right patients. Registries serve as an important tool in obtaining real-life evidence, since they are in effect observational studies, following the entire patient population.

Using observational study data as an external control group for a clinical trial: an empirical comparison of methods to account for longitudinal missing data

Background

Observational data are increasingly being used to conduct external comparisons to clinical trials. In this study, we empirically examined whether different methodological approaches to longitudinal missing data affected study conclusions in this setting.

Methods

We used data from one clinical trial and one prospective observational study, both Norwegian multicenter studies including patients with recently diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and implementing similar treatment strategies, but with different stringency. A binary disease remission status was defined at 6, 12, and 24 months in both studies. After identifying patterns of longitudinal missing outcome data, we evaluated the following five approaches to handle missingness: analyses of patients with complete follow-up data, multiple imputation (MI), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and two combinations of MI and IPCW.

Results

We found a complex non-monotone missing data pattern in the observational study (N = 328), while missing data in the trial (N = 188) was monotone due to drop-out. In the observational study, only 39.0% of patients had complete outcome data, compared to 89.9% in the trial. All approaches to missing data indicated favorable outcomes of the treatment strategy in the trial and resulted in similar study conclusions. Variations in results across approaches were mainly due to variations in estimated outcomes for the observational data.

Conclusions

Five different approaches to handle longitudinal missing data resulted in similar conclusions in our example. However, the extent and complexity of missing observational data affected estimated comparative outcomes across approaches, highlighting the need for careful consideration of methods to account for missingness in this setting. Based on this empirical examination, we recommend using a prespecified advanced missing data approach to account for longitudinal missing data, and to conduct alternative approaches in sensitivity analyses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01639-0.

Impact of Tofacitinib on Components of the ACR Response Criteria: Posthoc Analysis of Phase III and Phase IIIb/IV Trials

Objective

Evaluate the impact of tofacitinib on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria components in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This posthoc analysis pooled data from RA phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab, or placebo, with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and a phase IIIb/IV RCT assessing tofacitinib 5 mg BID monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg BID with methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate. Outcomes included: proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 responses and ≥20/50/70% improvement rates in ACR components at Week 2 and Months 1, 3, and 6; mean percent improvement in ACR components and Clinical or Simplified Disease Activity Index (CDAI or SDAI) low disease activity or remission rates, at Month 3, for ACR20/50/70 responders.

Results

Across treatment groups, ≥20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically higher for most physician- versus patient-reported measures. In phase III RCTs, at earlier timepoints, ≥50/70% improvements in Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Pain and Clinician Global Assessment were similar. Among ACR20 responders receiving tofacitinib, mean percent improvements for tender and swollen joint counts were >70% at Month 3. CDAI/SDAI remission was achieved by 27.8–45.0% of ACR70 responders receiving tofacitinib at Month 3.

Conclusion

Among ACR20 responders treated with tofacitinib, physician-reported components particularly exceeded 20% response improvement. At Month 3, disease state generally did not corroborate ACR70 response criteria. Divergences between physician- and patient-reported measures highlight the importance of identifying appropriate patient-reported outcome targets to manage RA symptoms in clinical practice.

EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology

Background

Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias.

Objectives

To develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.

Methods

The PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated.

Results

Three overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns.

Conclusion

To improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results.

Trend in Prescription and Treatment Retention of Molecular-Targeted Drugs in 121,131 Japanese Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Real-World Study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the real-world prescription and treatment retention of molecular-targeted drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

204,416 patients with RA prescribed at least one of the eight molecular-targeted drugs in 7 years from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan covering 98.3% of the Japanese population. The retention rate of each drug as well as head-to head comparisons were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

121,131 RA patients were prescribed any molecular-targeted drug for the first time, while 36,633 uses of molecular-targeted drug switched from another (switch use). The overall retention rates of molecular-targeted drugs at 12, 36, and 60 months were 0.64, 0.42, and 0.32 for the naïve use and 0.59, 0.40, and 0.31 for the switch use, respectively. Non-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor molecular-targeted drugs, particularly tocilizumab and tofacitinib, had higher retention rates than TNF inhibitors for both naïve and switch uses regardless of the previous drug, and showed higher retention rates in head-to-head comparisons between eight molecular-targeted drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data reveal that the real-world drug retention is overall lower than previously reported and higher with non-TNF inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors.

Development, psychometric evaluation and cognitive debriefing of the rheumatoid arthritis symptom and impact questionnaire (RASIQ)

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease often associated with persistent pain. There is a need for a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that is rooted in the patient experience and psychometrically validated. We describe the development of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (RASIQ), a novel PROM with potential to record key symptoms and impacts of RA with a 24-h recall period.

RESULTS

A literature review identified RA concepts that patients considered most important to their disease experience, including pain, fatigue, joint swelling and stiffness. From this, an initial item pool (33 items; 27 related to symptoms, 6 related to impacts) was developed with a recall period of 24 h. Two rheumatologists evaluated each item's relevance, and the second version of the RASIQ was refined (29 items; 21 related to symptoms, 8 related to impacts). Next, three rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with patients with RA (n = 15 overall). The RASIQ was revised to remove items deemed irrelevant or redundant, leaving 16 items measuring symptoms (joint pain, energy/tiredness, joint stiffness) and impacts (rest, sleep). A parallel series of semi-structured concept elicitation interviews (n = 30) facilitated the design of a conceptual model of RA symptoms, impacts and treatment experiences. Post-hoc comparison of the model with RASIQ revealed that all items selected were among the most important and relevant symptoms and impacts for patients. A final round of cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 12) confirmed that the final 16-item RASIQ was relevant and easy to understand, with no further changes recommended. Psychometric evaluation using data from two Phase II RA clinical trials confirmed a 3-factor structure, as well as the reliability and validity of the scale scores, and the ability of RASIQ to detect changes in symptoms and impacts when administered at specific study timepoints, using a 24-h recall period.

CONCLUSIONS

RASIQ is a novel, 16-item PROM developed with substantial patient input. Results from concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and psychometric evaluation confirmed the validity of the instrument, which has the potential to measure symptoms and impacts through a 24-h recall period and complement existing disease activity instruments with longer recall periods.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

The Incidence, Prevalence, and Associated Costs of Anemia, Malignancy, Venous Thromboembolism, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and Infections in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients by Treatment History in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can influence treatment selection, impact treatment persistency, and increase health care costs. This study assessed the magnitude of comorbidity burden via epidemiology (incidence and prevalence) and associated costs of select comorbidities in RA patients: anemia, malignancy, venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and infections, stratified by history of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) exposure.

METHODS

From the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database, we selected adult patients with RA (2 or more RA diagnostic codes at least 30 days apart) at initiation of a new DMARD (DMARD-naïve), after the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) or after the first biologic DMARD (bDMARD). We assessed pre-index prevalence (percentage) and on-treatment incidence (per 100 patient-years [P100PY]) of the aforementioned comorbidities. For patients with versus without incident conditions, we compared total all-cause health care costs as unadjusted and adjusted for baseline characteristics and health care costs.

RESULTS

Prior to initiating a new treatment, among DMARD-naïve patients (N = 28,201), csDMARD switchers (N = 7,816), or bDMARD switchers (N = 4,656), the overall prevalence ranged from 14.1% to 16.2% (anemia), from 1.3% to 5.2% (malignancy, evaluated in csDMARD and bDMARD switchers), from 1.5% to 2.1% (VTE), from 1.8% to 2.9% (MACE), and from 66.6% to 76.1% (infections). Once on index treatment, overall incidence (P100PY) among the cohorts ranged from 6.9 to 8.9 (anemia), from 2.0 to 2.3 (malignancy), from 0.7 to 0.9 (VTE), from 1.6 to 2.0 (MACE), and from 77.4 to 87.7 (infections). The incident comorbidities (except herpes zoster) were associated with increased adjusted health care costs.

CONCLUSION

Anemia, malignancy, VTE, MACE, and infections affect patients with RA at all stages of their treatment journey and are associated with increased health care costs.

Treatment With Tofacitinib in Refractory Psoriatic Arthritis: A National Multicenter Study of the First 87 Patients in Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

Tofacitinib (TOF) is the first Janus kinase ( JAK) inhibitor approved for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). It has shown efficacy in patients refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor-α in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our aim was to assess efficacy and safety of TOF in clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an observational, open-label multicenter study of PsA patients treated with TOF due to inefficacy or adverse events of previous therapies. Outcome variables were efficacy, corticosteroid dose-sparing effect, retention rate, and safety. A comparative study of clinical features between our cohort of patients and those from the OPAL Beyond trial was performed.

RESULTS

There were 87 patients (28 women/59 men), with a mean age of 52.8 ± 11.4 years. All patients were refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or to conventional synthetic DMARDs plus apremilast. TOF was started at 5 mg twice daily after a mean follow-up of 12.3 ± 9.3 years from PsA diagnosis. At first month, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) decreased from median 4.8 (IQR 4.1-5.4) to 3.7 (IQR 2.8-4.7, P < 0.01), Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis from median 28 (IQR 18.4-34.1) to 15.5 (IQR 10.1-25.7, P < 0.01), and C-reactive protein from median 1.9 (IQR 0.3-5.0) to 0.5 (IQR 0.1-2.2) mg/dL (P < 0.01). Also, TOF led to a significant reduction in prednisone dose. Mild adverse effects were reported in 21 patients (24.13%), mainly gastrointestinal symptoms. TOF retention rate at Month 6 was 77% (95% CI 65.2-86.3). Patients in clinical practice were older with longer disease duration and received biologic agents more commonly than those in the OPAL Beyond trial.

CONCLUSION

Data from clinical practice confirm that TOF seems to be effective, rapid, and relatively safe in refractory PsA despite clinical differences with patients in RCTs.

C-reactive protein and implications in rheumatoid arthritis and associated comorbidities

C-reactive protein (CRP) is routinely assessed as a marker of systemic inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is also an immune regulator that plays an important role in inflammatory pathways associated with RA and promotes atherogenic effects. Comorbidities linked to systemic inflammation are common in RA, and CRP has been associated with the risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, pulmonary diseases, and depression. The relationship between systemic inflammation, CRP, and comorbidities in RA is complex, and it is challenging to determine how changing CRP levels may affect the risk or progression of these comorbidities. We review the biological role of CRP in RA and its implications for disease activity and treatment response. We also discuss the impact of treatment on CRP levels and whether reducing systemic inflammation and inhibiting CRP-mediated inflammatory pathways may have an impact on conditions commonly comorbid with RA.

Compared to randomized studies, observational studies may overestimate the effectiveness of DOACs: a metaepidemiological approach

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are criticized for including patients who are overselected. Health authorities consequently encourage "real-world" postmarketing cohort studies. Our objective was to determine the differences between RCTs and observational studies as regards their populations and efficacy/safety results.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs and observational studies including patients with venous thromboembolism receiving direct oral anticoagulants or conventional treatment. Ratios of hazard ratio (RHR) comparing epidemiological studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies and studies using living databases) with RCTs were computed.

RESULTS

Six RCTs (27,121 patients) and twenty observational studies (248,971 patients) were identified and analyzed. Prospective cohort studies seemed to recruit patients who were no less selected than those of RCTs whereas other types of observational studies may reflect the population treated in real life. Among observational studies, prospective cohort studies yielded the most favorable estimates of treatment effect compared with RCTs. These studies were associated with a nonsignificant 33% increase in efficacy estimate (RHR 0.67, [95% CI, 0.39-1.18]) but no effect on safety estimate. Studies using living databases were associated with nonsignificant trends toward a greater effect on efficacy (RHR 0.82, [0.66-1.01]) and a smaller effect on safety (RHR 1.33, [0.96-1.84]).

DISCUSSION

Overall, in this clinical setting, an exaggeration of the treatment efficacy estimate was seen with observational studies compared with RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

As the presence of residual confounding cannot be excluded, these results should be interpreted cautiously.

Predictive factors for effective selection of Interleukin-6 inhibitor and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is aimed at long-term remission and inhibition of joint destruction by different biologic drugs. However, the choice of a particular biologic agent based on individual cases of RA remains unestablished. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitor and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor are common biologics used for the treatment of RA. This study aimed to investigate predictive factors for effective selection of tocilizumab (IL-6 inhibitor) and etanercept (TNF inhibitor) in patients with RA. This is a retrospective cohort study. The 196 patients analyzed in this study were divided into four groups: tocilizumab treatment as the first biologic group (TCZ first, 42 patients), tocilizumab as second/ third biologic group (TCZ second, 34 patients), etanercept as the first biologic group (ETN first, 103 patients) and etanercept as second/third group (ETN second, 17 patients). Visual analog scale (VAS), clinical disease activity index (CDAI), and modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ) scores at the initiation of biologic treatment and after 6 months of tocilizumab and etanercept therapy were measured and compared to clinical parameters and radiographical parameters among the four groups. CRP, MMP-3, VAS, CDAI, and HAQ were improved after 6 months of treatment in all groups. Improvement of clinical outcomes was correlated with CRP value, duration of RA, and Sharp scores at the initiation of treatment. Multivariate analysis demonstrated improvement in CDAI was significantly associated with the yearly progression of erosion according to the Sharp score in TCZ first group (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.03–2.07) and was negatively associated with the duration of RA (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.86) at the initiation of treatment with ETN first group. We identified the predictive factors for effective selection of tocilizumab and etanercept treatment and established the effectiveness of tocilizumab for the patients with rapid progressive joint erosion and etanercept for the early administration from diagnosis of RA.

Tofacitinib Persistence in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare medication persistence of tofacitinib with persistence of injectable biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective new-user cohort study of patients with RA in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases. New users of tofacitinib or bDMARD were identified between November 2012 and December 2016. Persistence, in number of years, was the time between treatment initiation and the earliest occurrence of discontinuation or switching from the medication prescribed at cohort entry. Persistence of tofacitinib was compared with bDMARD persistence using Cox proportional hazards regression with adjustment for high-dimensional propensity scores. Similar methods were used for an analysis of post first-line therapy in patients who switched to tofacitinib from a bDMARD.

RESULTS

New tofacitinib users (n = 1031) were 56 years of age, on average, and 82% were women. New bDMARD users (n = 17,803) were 53 years of age, on average, and 78% were women. New tofacitinib users had shorter medication persistence (median 0.81 yrs) compared to bDMARD patients (1.02 yrs). After adjustment, the HR for discontinuation of tofacitinib compared with bDMARD was 1.14 (95% CI 1.05-1.25). Patients who switched to tofacitinib from a bDMARD had longer persistence than patients who switched to a bDMARD (adjusted HR for discontinuation 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Further research is warranted to understand the reasons for discontinuation of tofacitinib despite its ease of administration and to understand the observed differences between switchers and new users.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of infliximab, golimumab and golimumab-IV in rheumatoid arthritis patients from a Canadian prospective observational registry

BACKGROUND

Long-term clinical registries are essential tools to evaluate new therapies in a patient population that differs from those in randomized clinical trials. The objectives are to describe the profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with anti-TNF agents in Canadian routine care.

METHODS

RA patients eligible for treatment with Infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GLM) or intravenous golimumab (GLM-IV) as per their respective Canadian product monographs were enrolled into the BioTRAC registry between 2002 and 2017. Study visits occurred at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in disease activity. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug survival.

RESULTS

Of the 890 IFX-, 530 GLM- and 157 GLM-IV-treated patients, the proportion of females ranged from 77.0-86.6%, the mean ages from 55.8-57.7 and the mean disease duration from 6.5-8.6 years. A significant decrease in baseline disease duration and disease activity parameters (DAS, TJC, SJC, HAQ, AM stiffness, MDGA, PtGA, CRP, ESR) was observed over time. Treatment with IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV significantly improved all disease parameters over time. The incidence of AEs was 105, 113 and 82.6 /100 PYs and the incidence of SAEs was 11.7, 11.2 and 4.68 /100 PYs for IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV-treated patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated with an anti-TNFs over time shows the evolution of treatment modalities over time. All treatments significantly reduced disease activity and improved functionality in a similar fashion. The incidence of adverse events was consistent with the safety profiles of IFX and GLM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00741793 (Retrospectively registered on August 26, 2008).

New Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatments for 'Old' Patients: Results of a Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have become available for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and a treat-to-target strategy has been introduced. We hypothesise that these advances should have resulted in changes to the characteristics of patients with RA participating in clinical trials of the newest therapies. This study determined whether the baseline characteristics of patients with RA enrolled in clinical trials have changed in the past decade versus patients participating in earlier RA studies.

METHODS

This secondary analysis was based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified in a systematic literature review. Baseline characteristics of patients with RA with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs were compared between RCTs published in 1999-2009 and those published in 2010-2017 using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs were analysed: 22 from 1999-2009 and 18 from 2010-2017. No significant difference between the two timeframes and no obvious trend over time were observed for age, gender, disease duration, rheumatoid factor status, tender and swollen joint counts, physician and patient global assessments of disease activity, and pain scores. Variability between RCTs was high. Similar results were observed for Disease Activity Scores and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores, but with low variability between RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The baseline characteristics of patients with RA participating in RCTs do not appear to have changed in the last decade despite the availability of new treatments and a different treatment approach. Further research should determine the impact of baseline patient characteristics on patients' response to RA treatments.

The role of medical informatics in the management of medical information

With progress in information and communication technology, medical information has been converted to digital formats and stored and managed using computer systems. The construction, management, and operation of medical information systems and regional medical liaison systems are the main components of the clinical tasks of medical informatics departments. Research using medical information accumulated in these systems is also a task for medical informatics department. Recently, medical real-world data (RWD) accumulated in medical information systems has become a focus not only for primary use but also for secondary uses of medical information. However, there are many problems, such as standardization, collection, cleaning, and analysis of them. The internet of things and artificial intelligence are also being applied in the collection and analysis of RWD and in resolving the above problems. Using these new technologies, progress in medical care and clinical research is about to enter a new era. J. Med. Invest. 67 : 27-29, February, 2020.

A standardization approach to compare treatment safety and effectiveness outcomes between clinical trials and real-world populations in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Patients recruited in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for biologic therapies in psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world psoriasis population.

OBJECTIVES

Firstly, to investigate whether patient characteristics are associated with being included in a psoriasis RCT. Secondly, to estimate the differences in the incidence of severe adverse events (SAEs) and the response rate between RCT and real-world populations of patients on biologic therapies for psoriasis using a standardization method.

METHODS

Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were appended to individual participant-level data from two RCTs assessing ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Baseline variables were assessed for association of being in an RCT using a multivariable logistic regression model. Propensity score weights were derived to reweigh the registry population so that variables had the distribution of the trial population. We measured the C-statistic of the model with trial status as the dependent variable, and the risk differences in the incidence rate of SAEs in the first year and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) after 6 months in the BADBIR cohort before and after weighting.

RESULTS

In total 6790 registry and 2021 RCT participants were included. The multivariable logistic regression model had a C-statistic of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.83]. The risk differences for the incidence rate of SAEs and the proportion of patients with PASI < 1.5 were 9.27 (95% CI -3.91-22.5) per 1000 person-years and 0.95 (95% CI -1.98-4.15), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RCTs of biologic therapies in patients with psoriasis are not fully representative of the real-world population, but this lack of external validity does not account for the efficacy-effectiveness gap. What's already known about this topic? Patients with psoriasis who would not be eligible for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating biologic therapies have a greater risk of serious adverse events and lower treatment effectiveness than patients who would have been eligible. What does this study add? Baseline patient characteristics were shown to be predictive of whether a patient would have been eligible for enrolment in an RCT for psoriasis biologic therapy. We did not find any efficacy-effectiveness gap between the sample representative of the real-world population of patients with psoriasis and the sample representative of the RCT population. Factors outside of baseline patient characteristics, such as observer effect and higher adherence in RCTs, may be more influential in any efficacy-effectiveness gap between trial and real-world populations of patients with psoriasis.

Visual Acuity Outcomes after Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report Number 19

PURPOSE

To analyze best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes after anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study of participants enrolled in a clinical trial of oral supplements and receiving anti-VEGF therapy in routine clinical practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) participants (50-85 years of age) whose eyes met AREDS2 inclusion criteria at baseline (no late AMD, BCVA ≥20/100, no previous anti-VEGF injections) but received at least 1 anti-VEGF injection for incident neovascular AMD during follow-up.

METHODS

Participants underwent refracted BCVA testing, ophthalmoscopic examination, and stereoscopic color fundus photography at baseline and annual study visits over 5 years. Self-reports of anti-VEGF injections (numbers, dates, and names of drug) were collected at baseline and annual study visits and during telephone calls every 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were mean refracted BCVA and proportions of eyes with BCVA of 20/40 or better and 20/200 or worse. An exploratory outcome measure was the mean number of self-reported anti-VEGF injections.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred five eyes of 986 AREDS2 participants met the inclusion criteria; of these, 977 participants (99.1%) underwent at least 1 posttreatment visit. At the first and subsequent annual examinations after the first injection, mean refracted BCVAs were 68.0 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/40), 66.1 letters, 64.7 letters, 63.2 letters, and 61.5 letters (Snellen equivalent, 20/60). Proportions of eyes with BCVA of 20/40 or better were 59.3%, 55.1%, 53.5%, 50.6%, and 49.7%, and those with BCVA of 20/200 or worse were 5.5%, 8.6%, 9.4%, 12.4%, and 14.4%. Mean annual numbers of self-reported anti-VEGF injections per eye were 2.9, 3.9, 3.3, 3.1, and 3.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Refracted BCVA data were obtained in a clinical trial environment but were related to anti-VEGF treatment administered in normal clinical practice. Visual outcomes declined slowly with increased follow-up time: mean BCVA decreased by approximately 1.5 to 2 letters per year. At 5 years, half of eyes achieved BCVA of 20/40 or better, but approximately one sixth showed BCVA of 20/200 or worse. These data may be useful in assessing the long-term effects of anti-VEGF therapy.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of rituximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A single-center experience in Taiwan

AIM

To assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of rituximab (RTX) at 24 months in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to identify predictors of low disease activity/remission and a good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response.

METHODS

Seventy RTX-treated RA patients were enrolled. Predictors for low disease activity/remission and a good EULAR response at 24 months were identified by multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

At 24 months, the mean Disease Activity Score of 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) decreased from 6.88 ± 0.85 at baseline to 3.47 ± 0.85. Twenty-nine patients (41.4%) reached low disease activity/remission, while all patients had a moderate/good EULAR response. After adjustment by multivariate analyses, we found concomitant methotrexate at a dosage >10 mg/week (odds ratio [OR] 5.17; 95% CI 1.34-19.93; P = 0.017) predicted low disease activity/remission, and baseline DAS28 ≤6.5 (OR 4.97; 95% CI 1.22-20.30; P = 0.026) predicted good EULAR response at 24 months. The most common adverse events were infusion-related (5.7%), and there was no incidence of malignancy or mortality during the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

RTX was effective and safe in real-life management of RA patients with high disease activity. Patients taking concomitant methotrexate and with lower baseline DAS28-ESR were more likely to benefit from RTX.

Safety of combination therapy with two bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature to assess the safety of combining two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We systematically searched for controlled studies evaluating safety in patients with RA treated with two bDMARDs independently of dose-regimen. Databases used were MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry platform. A meta-analysis was performed between groups on combination therapy and patients on single therapy using random effects model calculating odds ratio (OR) as well as 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 623 patients (410 on combination therapy and 213 on single therapy) were included. Median follow-up was 9.5 months (range 6-12 months). There was a significant increase in SAEs in the combination group (14.9 vs 6.0%, OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29-4.89, I² 0%) as well as in total adverse events (94.6 vs 89.1%, OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.11-3.86, I² 0%). When performing subgroup analysis in patients receiving only full-dose of both bDMARDs there was a significant increase in serious infections (6.7 vs 0.6%, OR 5.58, 95% CI 1.25-24.90, I² 0%) and the risk of SAEs remained significantly higher (17.1 vs 6.2%, OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30-5.69, I² 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that combination therapy with two bDMARDs in RA appears to increase the risk of SAEs during the first twelve months of treatment.