Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of SDZ ETN, an Etanercept Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: Final Results from Multi-Country COMPACT Study

INTRODUCTION

COMPACT, a non-interventional study, evaluated the persistence, effectiveness, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial-spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with SDZ ETN (etanercept [ETN] biosimilar) in Europe and Canada.

METHODS

Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who have been treated with SDZ ETN were categorised on the basis of prior treatment status (groups A-D): patients in clinical remission or with low disease activity under treatment with reference ETN or biosimilar ETN and switched to SDZ ETN; patients who received non-ETN targeted therapies and switched to SDZ ETN; biologic-naïve patients who started SDZ ETN after conventional therapy failure; or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with RA considered suitable for treatment initiation with a biologic and started on treatment with SDZ ETN. The primary endpoint was drug persistence, defined as time from study enrolment until discontinuation of SDZ ETN treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1466 patients recruited, 844 (57.6%) had RA, 334 (22.8%) had axSpA and 288 (19.6%) had PsA. Patients had an ongoing SDZ ETN treatment at the time of enrolment for an observed average of 138 days (range 1-841); 22.7% of patients discontinued SDZ ETN through 12 months of study observation. Overall, all the patients receiving SDZ ETN showed good treatment persistence at 12 months with discontinuation rates of 15.2%, 25.7% and 27.8% in groups A, B and C, respectively. Across all patient groups, no major differences were observed in the disease activity and PRO scores between baseline and month 12. Injection-site reactions were low across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

These results support the effectiveness and safety of SDZ ETN treatment in patients with RA, axSpA or PsA in real-life conditions. The treatment persistence rates observed were consistent with previously published reports of patients treated with reference or other biosimilar ETN. No new safety signals were identified.

Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept

BACKGROUND

To compare a treat-to-target (T2T) approach and routine care (RC) in adults with active to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating subcutaneous abatacept.

METHODS

A 12-month cluster-randomized trial in active RA patients treated with abatacept was conducted. Physicians were randomized to RC or T2T with a primary endpoint of achieving sustained Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) at two consecutive assessments approximately 3 months apart. Additional outcomes included Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity Score 28-CRP (DAS28-CRP), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Time to achieve therapeutic endpoints was assessed with survival analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 284 enrolled patients, 130 were in the T2T group and 154 in RC. Primary endpoint was achieved by 36.9% and 40.3% of patients in T2T and RC groups, respectively. No significant between-group differences were observed in the odds of achieving secondary outcomes, except for a higher likelihood of CDAI LDA in the T2T group vs. RC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.33 [1.03-1.71], p = 0.0263). Compared with RC, patients in the T2T group achieved SDAI remission significantly faster (Kaplan-Meier-estimated mean [standard error]: 14.0 [0.6] vs. 19.3 [0.8] months, p = 0.0428) with a trend toward faster achievement of CDAI LDA/remission, DAS28-CRP remission, and HAQ-DI minimum clinically important difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients managed per T2T and those under RC experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with higher odds of CDAI LDA and a shorter time to achieving therapeutic endpoints.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT03274141 . Date of registration: September 6, 2017.

Factors Associated With Maintenance of Remission Following Change From Combination Therapy to Monotherapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who persist in remission may decide to stop their therapy. We evaluated baseline characteristics associated with remaining in remission or low disease activity (LDA) following medication withdrawal.

METHODS

The Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects With Rheumatoid Arthritis (SEAM-RA) was a phase III, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, double-blind, controlled study in patients with RA on methotrexate (MTX) + etanercept (ETN). If remission (Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 3.3) was sustained through a 24-week run-in period, patients then entered a 48-week double-blind period and were randomized 2:2:1 to receive MTX monotherapy, ETN monotherapy, or continue combination therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify baseline factors associated with remission or LDA at the end of both periods.

RESULTS

Of 371 patients enrolled, 253 entered the double-blind period. After adjusting for other factors, covariates associated with achieving SDAI remission at the end of the run-in period included younger age, longer duration of MTX treatment, and less severe clinical disease variables. Covariates associated with maintaining remission/LDA at the end of the 48-week double-blind period included lower patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), lower C-reactive protein, rheumatoid factor (RF) negativity, longer RA duration in the MTX arm, shorter duration of ETN treatment, and lower magnesium.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate patients with overall lower disease activity are more likely to remain in SDAI remission/LDA after switching from combination therapy to monotherapy. RF-negative status and lower PtGA scores were strongly associated with increased likelihood of remaining in remission/LDA with MTX or ETN monotherapy. (SEAM-RA; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02373813).

Analysis of Disease Activity Metrics in a Methotrexate Withdrawal Study among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib plus Methotrexate

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this analysis was to assess disease activity metrics using a variety of disease outcome measures following methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal in ORAL Shift, a phase 3b/4 study of tofacitinib with/without MTX, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA).

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus MTX for 24 weeks. In the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase, those who had achieved CDAI LDA (≤ 10) at week 24 were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib monotherapy or continued tofacitinib plus MTX. Efficacy analyses were performed in subgroups defined by whether remission and/or LDA had been achieved at week 24 with: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)], Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), CDAI and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); or DAS28-4[C-reactive protein(CRP)] < 2.4/ < 2.6/ < 2.9/ ≤ 3.2.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirty patients received treatment in the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase. Proportions of patients achieving each disease activity criterion at week 24 varied by metric. Across disease activity metrics [excluding DAS28-4(ESR) remission], 58-89% of patients per group, and numerically more patients receiving tofacitinib plus MTX, achieved the same criterion at week 48 as at week 24. Differences between groups in least squares mean change from baseline (Δ) DAS28-4(ESR) from week 24-48 favoured tofacitinib plus MTX (nominal p values < 0.05). RAPID3 and DAS28-4(CRP) estimated a higher proportion of patients with acceptable disease state versus DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI remission and SDAI remission.

CONCLUSION

Response rates at the beginning of the double-blind phase varied across metrics. A consistent trend towards higher response rates with tofacitinib plus MTX was observed across metrics after randomisation, with nominal differences in DAS28-4(ESR) responses. Compared with continued combination therapy, MTX withdrawal did not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in the response to tofacitinib. DAS28-4(CRP) and RAPID3 were the least stringent metrics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02831855.

Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib in Canadian Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Primary Results From a Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

The Canadian Tofacitinib for Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational (CANTORAL) is the first Canadian prospective, observational study assessing tofacitinib. The objective was to assess effectiveness and safety for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Coprimary and secondary outcomes are reported from an interim analysis.

METHODS

Patients initiating tofacitinib from October 2017 to July 2020 were enrolled from 45 Canadian sites. Coprimary outcomes (month 6) included the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA) and remission. Secondary outcomes (to month 18) included the CDAI and the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level to define LDA and remission; the proportions of patients achieving mild pain (visual analog scale <20 mm), and moderate (≥30%) and substantial (≥50%) pain improvements; and the proportions of patients achieving a Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) score greater or equal to  normative values (≤0.25) and a HAQ DI score greater or equal to minimum clinically important difference (MCID) (≥0.22). Safety was assessed to month 36.

RESULTS

Of 504 patients initiating tofacitinib, 44.4% received concomitant methotrexate. At month 6, 52.9% and 15.4% of patients were in CDAI-defined LDA and remission, respectively; a similar proportion of patients achieved outcomes by month 3 (first post-baseline assessment). By month 3, 27.2% and 41.7% of patients, respectively, were in DAS28-ESR-defined LDA and DAS28-CRP <3.2; 14.7% and 25.8% achieved DAS28-ESR remission and DAS28-CRP <2.6. By month 3, mild pain and moderate and substantial pain improvements occurred in 29.6%, 55.6%, and 42.9% of patients, respectively; 19.9% and 53.7% of patients achieved a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to normative values and a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to MCID, respectively. Outcomes were generally maintained to month 18. Incidence rates (events per 100 patient-years) for treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were 126.8, 11.9, and 14.5, respectively, and AEs of special interest were infrequent.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib was associated with early and sustained improvement in RA signs and symptoms in real-world patients. Effectiveness and safety were consistent with the established tofacitinib clinical profile.

Effects of Disease-Worsening Following Withdrawal of Etanercept or Methotrexate on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From the SEAM-RA Trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The effect of treatment withdrawal on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose disease is in sustained remission has not been well described. This analysis aimed to compare PRO changes in patients with RA following medication withdrawal and disease worsening.

METHODS

SEAM-RA (Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects With Rheumatoid Arthritis) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, double-blind controlled study in patients with RA taking methotrexate plus etanercept and in remission (Simple Disease Activity Index ≤3.3). Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Assessment of Joint Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey were evaluated for 48 weeks following methotrexate or etanercept withdrawal. Treatment differences for patients with versus without disease worsening were evaluated using a 2-sample t test for continuous end points and log-rank test for time-to-event end points.

RESULTS

Of 253 patients, 121 experienced disease worsening and 132 did not. All PRO scores were similar to those of a general population at baseline and deteriorated over time across the study population. The PtGA and Patient's Assessment of Joint Pain values deteriorated less in those on etanercept monotherapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy. More patients with versus without disease worsening experienced deterioration that was greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for all PROs tested. In patients with disease worsening, PtGA deterioration more than the MCID preceded Simple Disease Activity Index disease worsening.

CONCLUSIONS

Etanercept monotherapy showed benefit over methotrexate in maintaining PRO scores. Patients with disease worsening experienced a more rapid worsening of PtGA beyond the MCID versus patients without disease worsening.Categories: autoinflammatory disease, biological therapy, DMARDs, rheumatoid arthritis.

Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission).

METHODS

The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Impact of Methotrexate Discontinuation, Interruption, or Persistence in US Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Tofacitinib + Oral Methotrexate Combination

PURPOSE

Using data from real-world practice, this analysis compared outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating treatment with an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib, in combination with persistent, discontinued, or interrupted treatment with oral methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

This retrospective claims analysis (MarketScan® databases) included data from US patients with RA and at least one prescription claim for tofacitinib, dated between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2017. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled for ≥12 months before and after treatment initiation, and initiated tofacitinib in combination with oral MTX, with at least two prescription claims for each. Patients were grouped according to treatment pattern (MTX-Persistent, MTX-Discontinued, or MTX-Interrupted). Tofacitinib treatment persistence, adherence, and effectiveness, as well as all-cause and RA-related health care costs, were assessed.

FINDINGS

A total of 671 patients were eligible for inclusion; 504 (75.1%) were MTX-Persistent; 131 (19.5%), MTX-Discontinued; and 36 (5.4%), MTX-Interrupted. Rates of tofacitinib treatment persistence, adherence, and effectiveness at 12 months were similar between the MTX-Persistent and MTX-Discontinued cohorts. The percentage of patients switched from tofacitinib to another advanced disease-modifying antirheumatic drug within 12 months of tofacitinib initiation was greater in the MTX-Persistent cohort compared with that in the MTX-Discontinued cohort. RA-related health care costs at 12 months post-initiation were significantly greater in the MTX-Persistent cohort compared with those in the MTX-Discontinued cohort.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings from this analysis of real-world data indicate that patients who initiate tofacitinib in combination with oral MTX may discontinue MTX and still experience outcomes similar to those in patients who persist with MTX, with lesser RA-related health care costs. These results support those from a previous clinical study on methotrexate withdrawal in patients with RA (NCT02831855).

POS0677 CONSISTENCY IN TIME TO RESPONSE WITH UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY OR COMBINATION THERAPY AND ACROSS PATIENT POPULATIONS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background

Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across various patient populations.1–4

Objectives

This post hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the consistency in time to achieving meaningful clinical response with UPA 15 mg + conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs in biologic (b) DMARD-inadequate responder (IR) versus csDMARD-IR patients with RA as well as with UPA 15 mg monotherapy versus UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in csDMARD-IR patients.

Methods

Patients originally randomized to UPA 15 mg once daily from four Phase 3 trials were included in this analysis: SELECT-BEYOND1 and SELECT-CHOICE2 (UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in bDMARD-IR patients), SELECT-NEXT3 (UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in csDMARD-IR patients), and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY4 (UPA 15 mg monotherapy in methotrexate-IR patients). Time to response was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method for clinical outcomes over 24 weeks (26 weeks in SELECT-MONOTHERAPY). Clinical outcomes included achievement of 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) ≤3.2; low disease activity (LDA) defined as Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10 and Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11; and 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core components and morning stiffness (MS) duration/severity. Data presented were as observed.

Results

Overall, 905 patients were included (SELECT-BEYOND: n=164; SELECT-CHOICE: n=303; SELECT-NEXT: n=221; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: n=217). csDMARD-IR patients had a mean disease duration of 7.3 (SELECT-NEXT) or 7.5 years (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY); bDMARD-IR patients had a mean disease duration of 12.4 years, with a more refractory population (≥3 prior bDMARDs) in SELECT-BEYOND (23%) than SELECT-CHOICE (10%). In general, the median time to DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, CDAI LDA, 50% improvement in ACR core components, and 50% improvement in MS duration/severity were consistent across the studies in bDMARD-IR and csDMARD-IR patients. For SELECT-BEYOND, SELECT-CHOICE, SELECT-NEXT, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, the median (95% CI) time to achieve DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2 was 12 (12, 16), 12 (8, 12), 12 (8, 12), and 14 (8, 14) weeks, respectively (Figure 1), and the median time to achieve CDAI LDA was 20 (12, 24), 16 (12, 16), 16 (12, 16), and 20 (14, 20) weeks, respectively (Figure 2). A longer median (95% CI) time to achieve SDAI LDA was observed with UPA monotherapy (20 [14, 20] weeks) versus UPA + csDMARDs (12 [12, 16] weeks) in csDMARD-IR patients. Among bDMARD-IR patients, the median (95% CI) time to 50% improvement in pain was longer in SELECT-BEYOND versus SELECT-CHOICE (16 [12, 20] versus 8 [8, 12] weeks).

Conclusion

In diverse patient populations with RA, patients treated with UPA 15 mg, as monotherapy or with csDMARDs, generally demonstrated consistent time to achieving DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, CDAI LDA, and 50% improvement in clinical outcomes.

References

[1]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24.

[2]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.

[3]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2503–12.

[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet 2019;393:2303–11.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Amy Wilson, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, and Sanofi, Zoltán Szekanecz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and research grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and research grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, and UCB, Boulos Haraoui Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Suzan Attar: None declared, Anna-Karin H Ekwall Consultant of: AbbVie and Pfizer, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Orsolya Nagy Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

POS0640 REAL-WORLD EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF GP2015 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES: FINAL RESULTS OF THE COMPACT STUDY

Background

COMPACT is a non-interventional study evaluating the effectiveness and safety in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial-spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with GP2015 (an etanercept [ETN] biosimilar) in real-world conditions.

Objectives

We present the effectiveness and safety data from the final analysis of the COMPACT study for all patient groups.

Methods

Pts aged ≥18 years on treatment with GP2015 were enrolled. Baseline visit corresponded with date of study inclusion and not with date of GP2015 treatment start. Pts were categorised based on prior treatment status: pts on clinical remission or low disease activity under treatment with reference ETN or biosimilar ETN (initial ETN: [iETN]) and switched to GP2015 (Group A) or pts who received non-ETN targeted therapies and switched to GP2015 (Group B) or biologic-naïve pts who started GP2015 after conventional therapy failure (Group C) or DMARD-naïve pts with recent diagnosis of RA considered suitable for treatment initiation with a biologic and started on treatment with GP2015 (Group D). Effectiveness assessments included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) until Month 12 after enrolment (baseline) in the study.

Results

Of the 1466 pts enrolled, 572 were switched from iETN (Group A), 171 were switched from other targeted therapies (Group B), 713 were biologic-naïve (Group C), and 10 were RA DMARD-naïve (Group D). Comorbidities were more frequent in pts with RA (68.7%,) followed by pts with PsA (59.4%) and axSpA (52.1%). After 12 months of treatment with GP2015, pts with RA or PsA achieved comparable DAS28-ESR scores irrespective of whether they switched from iETN, or from other targeted therapies or were biologic-naïve. At Month 12, the mean ASDAS scores were comparable between the treatment groups in pts with axSpA (Table 1). Across all pt groups, no major differences were observed in the disease activity scores between baseline and Month 12 that may be explained by the ongoing GP2015 treatment at the time of enrolment for an observed average of 138 days. Overall, the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event (AE) and serious AE (SAE) was 47.6% and 7.7% in pts who were switched from iETN, 56.7% and 9.9% in pts switched from other targeted therapies, 56% and 8.7% in biologic-naïve pts, and 60% and 0% in DMARD-naïve pts. Rate of injection site reaction was low across the groups (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Effectiveness outcomes in patients treated with GP2015

Effectiveness outcomesGroup AGroup BGroup CGroup DOverall (A-D)RADAS28-ESR, n, mean (SD)N=295N=88N=451N=10N=844Baselinen=259n=70n=392n=8n=7292.5 (1.1)3.6 (1.3)3.3 (1.5)3.8 (1.2)3.0 (1.4)Month 12n=135n=47n=238n=2n=4222.5 (1.3)2.7 (1.0)2.8 (1.4)4.3 (2.5)2.7 (1.3)PsAN=117N=36N=135N=0N=288Baselinen=80n=30n=116-n=2262.1 (1.0)2.9 (1.6)2.9 (1.6)2.6 (1.5)Month 12n=32n=13n=60-n=1052.6 (1.9)2.6 (1.6)2.3 (1.4)2.4 (1.5)AxSpAASDAS, n, mean (SD)N=160N=47N=127N=0N=334Baselinen=77n=18n=59-n=1541.6 (0.6)1.8 (0.8)2.3 (0.9)1.9 (0.8)Month 12n=39n=8n=23-n=701.8 (0.9)1.9 (0.6)1.9 (1.0)1.8 (0.9)

N, total number of patients in the treatment group; n, number of patients with available data at each time point, SD, standard deviation

Figure 1.

Overall safety outcomes in patients treated with GP2015

Figure 1 represents the adverse events reported during GP2015 treatment.

N, total number of patients in the treatment; n, number of patients in each treatment group

Conclusion

The results show comparable disease activity scores between pts who were switched from iETN, pts switched from other targeted therapies and biologic-naïve pts after 12 months of treatment with GP2015. No impact on the effectiveness of ETN was observed in pts with RA, axSpA or PsA who switched to GP2015. No new safety signals were reported.

Disclosure of Interests

Marc Schmalzing Speakers bureau: Novartis, AbbVie, Chugai/Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Chugai/Roche, Hexal/Sandoz, Gilead, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer/Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Chugai/Roche, Boehringer/Ingelheim, Celgene, Medac, Herbert Kellner: None declared, Ayman Askari: None declared, Javier de Toro Santos: None declared, JULIO CESAR VAZQUEZ PEREZ-COLEMAN Speakers bureau: Sandoz, Abbvie, Sanofi, Fresenius, Rosario Foti Speakers bureau: Abbivie, Gilead, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sławomir Jeka: None declared, Boulos Haraoui Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly and Pfizer, Yannick Allanore Consultant of: Sandoz Hexal, Mylan, Astra-Zeneca, Masiur Rahman Employee of: Sandoz Hexal AG, Fabricio Furlan Employee of: Sandoz Hexal AG, Sohaib HACHAICHI Employee of: Sandoz Hexal AG, Tom Sheeran Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, UCB, Roche

A Bridge Too Far? Real-World Practice Patterns of Early Glucocorticoid Use in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of glucocorticoid use in a large real-world cohort with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assess the impact on disease activity and treatment.

METHODS

Data are from adults with new RA (≤1 year) recruited to the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) and are stratified on the basis of whether a person was prescribed oral glucocorticoids within 3 months of study entry. Disease activity was compared over 24 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used for adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of escalation to biologics separately for 12 and 24 months, with random effects terms to account for prescribing patterns clustering by study site.

RESULTS

Among 1891 persons, 30% received oral steroids. Users were older, were less often employed, and had shorter disease duration and higher disease activity. Disease activity improved over time, with early glucocorticoid users starting at higher levels of disease activity. Participants with early oral glucocorticoids were more likely to be on a biologic at 12 months (aOR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.7) and 24 months (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0). Despite Canadian clinical practice guidelines to limit corticosteroid use to short-term or 'bridge' therapy, 30% of patients who used oral glucocorticoids still used them 2 years later.

CONCLUSION

Early steroids were prescribed sparingly in CATCH and were often indicative of more active baseline disease as well as the need for progression to biologics.

Associations Between Safety of Certolizumab Pegol, Disease Activity, and Patient Characteristics, Including Corticosteroid Use and Body Mass Index

Objective

To investigate the impact of baseline and time‐varying factors on the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients during long‐term certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment.

Methods

Safety data were pooled across 34 CZP clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PSO). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to investigate the association of baseline patient characteristics with risk of serious infectious events (SIEs), malignancies, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Cox modeling for recurrent events assessed the impact of time‐varying body mass index (BMI), systemic corticosteroid (CS) use, and disease activity on SIE risk in RA and SAE risk in PSO.

Results

Data were pooled from 8747 CZP‐treated patients across indications. Cox models reported a 44% increase in SIE risk associated with a baseline BMI of 35 kg/m² or more versus a baseline BMI of 18.5 kg/m² to less than 25 kg/m². Baseline systemic CS use, age of 65 years or more, and disease duration of 10 years or longer also increased SIE risk. Older age was the only identified risk factor for malignancies. The risk of MACEs increased 107% for BMI of 35 kg/m² or more versus BMI of 18.5 kg/m² to less than 25 kg/m² and increased 51% for men versus women. Higher disease activity, older age, systemic CS use, BMI of 35 kg/m² or more, and baseline comorbidities were SIE risk factors in RA. Age and systemic CS use were risk factors for SAEs in PSO.

Conclusion

Age, BMI, systemic CS use, and disease activity were identified as SIE risk factors in CZP‐treated patients. Risk of malignancies was greater in older patients, whereas obesity and male sex were MACE risk factors.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week open-label phase results from a phase 3b/4 methotrexate withdrawal non-inferiority study (ORAL Shift)

OBJECTIVES

To report the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the open-label phase of Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Shift.

METHODS

ORAL Shift was a global, 48-week, phase 3b/4 withdrawal study in patients with moderate to severe RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Patients received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate; those who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)≤10) at week 24 were randomised to receive blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus placebo (ie, blinded methotrexate withdrawal) or continue with blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate for another 24 weeks. Efficacy, PROs and safety from the open-label phase are reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Following screening, 694 patients were enrolled and received tofacitinib plus methotrexate in the open-label phase. At week 24, 527 (84.5%) patients achieved CDAI-defined LDA. Improvements from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were generally observed for all efficacy outcomes (including measures of disease activity, and response, LDA and remission rates) and PROs. Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were reported by 362 (52.2%), 20 (2.9%) and 41 (5.9%) patients, respectively. No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate conferred improvements in disease activity measures, functional outcomes and PROs, with most (84.5%) patients achieving CDAI-defined LDA after 24 weeks of open-label treatment; the safety profile was generally consistent with the historic safety profile of tofacitinib.Funded by Pfizer Inc; NCT02831855.

POS0671 CLINICAL RESPONSES TO UPADACITINIB OR ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS BY TYPE OF PRIOR BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG: DATA FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-CHOICE STUDY

Background:

In the phase 3 double-blind SELECT-CHOICE study of patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), upadacitinib (UPA) showed superiority to abatacept (ABA) in change from baseline in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) and in the proportion of pts achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 at Week 12.

Objectives:

To describe clinical responses in pts receiving UPA or ABA by number and mechanism of action of prior bDMARDs.

Methods:

612 pts were randomized to once-daily UPA 15 mg or monthly intravenous ABA (<60 kg, 500 mg; 60–100 kg, 750 mg; >100 kg, 1000 mg). All pts continued background therapy with stable conventional synthetic DMARDs. From Week 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts vs baseline at 2 consecutive visits had background medication(s) adjusted or added. In this post hoc analysis, pts were grouped by the number and/or type of bDMARD received prior to enrollment: 1) lack of efficacy (LoE) to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor; 2) LoE to ≥1 interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitor; 3) intolerance to prior bDMARDs; 4) number of prior bDMARDs (1, 2, or ≥3). Mean change from baseline in DAS28(CRP) and DAS28(CRP) <2.6 and other clinical endpoints were evaluated at Weeks 12/24.

Results:

Most pts had LoE to ≥1 TNF inhibitor (536, 87.6%); 96 (15.7%) had LoE to an IL-6 inhibitor; 79 (12.9%) had intolerance to prior bDMARDs; 408 (66.7%), 134 (21.9%), and 64 (10.5%) had received 1, 2, or ≥3 prior bDMARDs, respectively. Mean change from baseline in DAS28(CRP) was generally greater with UPA vs ABA across the different pt subgroups at Weeks 12/24 (Figure 1). Across endpoints, regardless of prior bDMARD therapy (except in those who failed ≥3 prior bDMARDs), UPA and ABA demonstrated similar responses at Week 12 compared with those observed for the overall treatment groups, even with more stringent criteria such as ACR70 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤2.8 (Table 1. below) Responses at Week 24 followed a similar trend to those at Week 12 for DAS28(CRP) <2.6 and other endpoints (Table 1). The safety profile across subgroups was consistent with each respective treatment in the overall study population (data not shown).

Table 1.

Efficacy endpoints by prior bDMARD subgroup (Week 12 [top] and Week 24 [bottom])a

ACR20ACR50ACR70DAS28(CRP)≤3.2DAS28(CRP) <2.6CDAI ≤10CDAI ≤2.8HAQ-DIMCIDbLoE to ≥1 TNF inhibitorUPA 15 mg n=26375.377.944.959.722.838.849.061.230.446.840.758.69.122.875.574.3ABAn=27364.572.933.748.413.224.927.546.512.529.733.749.82.212.565.266.3LoE to ≥1 IL-6 inhibitorUPA 15 mg n=4870.885.437.566.720.829.245.866.725.041.741.758.36.316.778.378.3ABAn=4877.179.241.756.322.927.125.043.814.629.227.152.12.110.475.075.0Intolerance to prior bDMARDsUPA 15 mgn=4783.076.653.257.417.027.753.257.431.929.844.744.78.514.980.073.3ABAn=3262.571.928.150.00.031.321.956.36.331.321.956.33.19.461.367.71 priorbDMARDUPA 15 mgn=20677.281.151.963.121.838.852.466.032.547.641.761.29.220.979.676.6ABAn=20267.377.735.153.515.833.729.251.512.435.636.155.93.016.366.771.72 priorbDMARDsUPA 15 mgn=6478.176.634.456.323.439.151.662.526.650.045.354.74.723.473.870.5ABAn=7064.364.328.642.94.311.427.141.411.424.328.644.31.48.655.755.7≥3 prior bDMARDsUPA 15 mg n=2955.265.524.144.817.224.127.641.420.727.627.648.310.317.258.672.4ABAn=3565.771.440.040.020.017.128.637.120.020.037.140.02.98.677.174.3

aMissing information was imputed using NRI. bHAQ-DI MCID=reduction from baseline of ≥0.22

ACR20/50/70, 20/50/70% improvement in ACR criteria; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index

Conclusion:

Although sample sizes were small for some subgroups, treatment with UPA led to greater clinical responses vs ABA at Week 12, including in pts with LoE to TNF or IL-6 inhibitors, and those with IR or intolerance to 1, 2, or ≥3 prior bDMARDs.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Grant Kirkpatrick, MSc of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Boulos Haraoui Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Herbert S.B. Baraf Consultant of: Gilead, Janssen, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, and Janssen, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Naomi Martin Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, John Cush Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis.

POS0232 CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF ADALIMUMAB VERSUS NON-BIOLOGIC THERAPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF EXTRA-ARTICULAR MANIFESTATIONS IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS PATIENTS OVER 24 MONTHS – RESULTS OF THE COMPLETE-AS CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Background:

COMPLETE-AS was a Canadian observational study among biologic-naïve adults with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) initiated on either adalimumab (ADA) or subsequent non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nbDMARD/NSAID) after a switch from initial treatment due to inadequate response or intolerance, as per the judgement of the treating physician.

Objectives:

The aim of this analysis was to assess the 24-month effectiveness of ADA compared to nbDMARD/NSAID in the management of heel enthesitis and extra-articular manifestations (EAMs).

Methods:

Patients were enrolled between July 2011 and December 2017, and followed for up to 24 months. Patients were treated as per routine care and all analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat (ITT) approach. The disease outcomes assessed in this study included enthesitis (of the heel) and EAMs [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), uveitis, and psoriasis (PsO)]. The rate ratio (RR) for first occurrence or flare-up/exacerbation of disease outcomes was ascertained with multivariate models. The time to first occurrence of EAMs and enthesitis was ascertained with Cox proportional hazard models, generating a hazard ratio (HR).

Results:

A total of 452 patients treated with ADA and 187 patients receiving a subsequent nbDMARD/NSAID were enrolled in the study. Baseline characteristics were overall comparable between treatment groups: patients had a mean (SD) age of 42.7 (13.4) years, 55.6% were male, and 85.8% were Caucasian. The mean (SD) duration of AS since diagnosis was 5.6 (9.3) years. A total of 17.7%, 12.4%, 18.5%, and 16.3% of patients had experienced enthesitis, IBD, uveitis, and PsO, respectively at baseline. Disease severity (mean [SD] BASDAI) was however higher among ADA- vs. nbDMARD/NSAID-treated patients (6.4 [1.8] vs. 5.0 [1.8]; p<0.001).

In terms of the rates of first occurrence or flare-up/exacerbation of enthesitis and EAMs, statistically significant between-group differences were found, whereby ADA-treated patients had a 60% reduced rate of both uveitis [RR (95% CI): 0.4 (0.2-0.6)] and enthesitis [0.4 (0.3-0.7)] compared to nbDMARD/NSAID-treated patients. The rates of first occurrence or flare-up/exacerbation for IBD [1.1 (0.7-1.7)] and PsO [3.3 (0.9-12.7)]were statistically comparable between treatment groups.

The time to first occurrence of both enthesitis and uveitis was also statistically significant (p<0.05) between groups. ADA-treated patients had a 50% lower risk of enthesitis as a first occurrence compared to nbDMARD/NSAID-treated patients [HR (95% CI): 0.5 (0.3-0.9)], and an 80% lower risk of uveitis [0.2 (0.0-0.8)]. The time to first occurrence of IBD [0.7 (0.2-2.1)] and PsO [1.9 (0.8-4.6)], were statistically comparable between treatment groups.

Conclusion:

Despite a comparable proportion of patients reporting baseline EAMs and enthesitis, patients treated with ADA were less likely to experience a first occurrence or flare-up/exacerbation, of both enthesitis and uveitis compared to patients treated with nbDMARD/NSAID. The results of this real-world Canadian study suggest that treatment with ADA among AS patients is more effective at preventing the first occurrence / exacerbation of select EAMs and heel enthesitis.

Acknowledgements:

The authors wish to acknowledge JSS Medical Research for their contribution to the statistical analysis, medical writing, and editorial support during the preparation of this abstract. AbbVie provided funding to JSS Medical Research for this work.

Disclosure of Interests:

Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Speaker for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Consultant of: Consultant for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Fresenius Kabi, Grant/research support from: Investigator for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Boulos Haraoui Speakers bureau: Speakers for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: Advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Brandusa Florica Speakers bureau: Speaker for Merck, AbbVie, Roche, BMS, and Novartis, Consultant of: Consultant for Roche, AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, Celgene, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Investigator for AbbVie, Pfizer, and BMS, Marie-Claude Laliberté Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Majed Khraishi Speakers bureau: Speaker for AbbVie, Consultant of: Consultant for AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Principal Investigator for AbbVie.

POS0086 ANALYSIS OF DISEASE ACTIVITY MEASURES IN THE CONTEXT OF A METHOTREXATE WITHDRAWAL STUDY AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH TOFACITINIB 11 MG ONCE DAILY + METHOTREXATE: POST HOC ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM ORAL SHIFT

Background:

The Phase 3b/4 study ORAL Shift demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety of tofacitinib modified-release (MR) 11 mg once daily (QD) following methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal that was non-inferior to continued tofacitinib + MTX use (per DAS28-4[ESR]), in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved CDAI-defined low disease activity (LDA) with tofacitinib + MTX at Week (W)24.1

Objectives:

To assess the performance of alternative disease activity measures at W24 (randomisation) and W48 (study endpoint) in ORAL Shift.

Methods:

ORAL Shift (NCT02831855) enrolled pts aged ≥18 years with moderate to severe RA and an inadequate response to MTX. Pts received open-label tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD + MTX for 24 weeks. Achievement of CDAI LDA (≤10) at W24 was set as the criteria for entry to the 24-week double-blind MTX withdrawal phase, with pts randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD + placebo (PBO) (ie blinded MTX withdrawal) or continue tofacitinib + MTX. In this post hoc analysis, efficacy analyses were performed in 8 subgroups defined by achievement of various disease activity criteria at W24: DAS28-4(ESR) remission (<2.6) or LDA (≤3.2); DAS28-4(CRP) <2.6 or ≤3.2; RAPID3 remission (≤3) or LDA (≤6); CDAI remission (≤2.8); and SDAI remission (≤3.3). For each subgroup, the proportion of pts who achieved the corresponding disease activity criterion at W48 was calculated, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. The change (Δ) from W24 to W48 in least squares (LS) mean DAS28-4(ESR) and DAS28-4(CRP) was also calculated in each subgroup, with a 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups estimated using a mixed model with repeated measures. Nominal p values were calculated and are presented with no formal statistical hypothesis testing formulated.

Results:

Overall, 694 pts entered the open-label phase of ORAL Shift, and 530 were randomised and received treatment in the double-blind phase; 264 and 266 pts received tofacitinib + PBO and tofacitinib + MTX, respectively (Figure 1a). Considering those pts who were randomised and treated, the proportion of pts achieving each disease activity criterion at W24 varied, but was similar between treatments within each subgroup (Figure 1a). Among pts who met each disease activity criterion at W24, generally the majority of pts in both treatment groups also met the same criterion at W48 (Figure 1b). Numerically more pts receiving tofacitinib + MTX vs tofacitinib + PBO continued to meet the corresponding criterion at W48. Regardless of the disease activity criterion met at W24, differences between treatment groups in LS mean ΔDAS28-4(ESR) (Figure 1c) and ΔDAS28-4(CRP) (data not shown) from W24 to W48 favoured tofacitinib + MTX vs tofacitinib + PBO.

Conclusion:

This post hoc analysis of data from pts randomised and treated in ORAL Shift demonstrated that, regardless of the disease activity state criterion met at W24, generally a majority of pts receiving tofacitinib maintained achievement of the corresponding disease activity criterion at W48, with or without continued MTX. Differences between treatment groups in LS mean ΔDAS28-4(ESR) from W24 to W48, as defined by achievement of LDA or remission with a variety of disease activity measures, were less than a change of 1.2, which is considered to be the threshold for a minimal clinically important improvement.2

References:

[1]Cohen et al. Lancet Rheumatol 2019; 1: E23-34.

[2]Ward et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 1691-1696.

Acknowledgements:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Gemma Turner, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Roy Fleischmann Speakers bureau: Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Samumed, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, VORSO, Boulos Haraoui Speakers bureau: Amgen, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, David Gold Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Gosford Sawyerr Consultant of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Syneos Health Inc, Harry Shi Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Annette Diehl Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Kristen Lee Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc.

Efficacy of Long-Term Treatment with Once-Daily Baricitinib 2 mg in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of Two 24-Week, Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Studies and One Long-Term Extension Study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) or biologic DMARDs (bDMARD).

METHODS

Data from patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg daily in two 24-week, phase III studies, RA-BUILD (csDMARD-IR; NCT01721057) and RA-BEACON (bDMARD-IR; NCT01721044), and one long-term extension study (RA-BEYOND; NCT01885078), were analyzed (120 weeks). The main outcomes were achievement of low-disease activity (LDA; Simple Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 11), clinical remission (SDAI ≤ 3.3), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤ 0.5 and improvement from baseline of ≥ 0.22, and safety. Analysis populations included (1) all patients and (2) never-rescued patients. Completer and non-responder imputation (NRI) analyses were conducted on each population.

RESULTS

In RA-BUILD, 684 were randomized (229 to baricitinib 2 mg, 180 of whom completed RA-BUILD and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BEACON, 527 were randomized (174 to baricitinib 2 mg, 117 of whom completed RA-BEACON and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BUILD-BEYOND, 85.1% (63/74, completer) and 27.5% (63/229, NRI) of csDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 40.5% (30/74, completer) and 13.1% (30/229, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 62.2% (46/74, completer) and 20.1% (46/229, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 and 81.1% (60/74, completer); and 26.2% (60/229, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. In RA-BEACON-BEYOND, 86.5% (32/37, completer) and 18.4% (32/174, NRI) of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 24.3% (9/37, completer) and 5.2% (9/174, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 50.0% (19/38, completer) and 10.9% (19/174, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5; and 73.7% (28/38, completer) and 16.1% (28/174, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. Rates of adverse events of special interest were consistent with previous reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with baricitinib 2 mg demonstrated efficacy for up to 120 weeks and was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01721057, NCT01721044, and NCT01885078.

Real-life drug persistence in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with CT-P13: a prospective observational cohort study (PERSIST)

Objective

The aim was to report results from PERSIST, a real-life, observational, prospective cohort study of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, for treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA who were biologic naïve or switched from an IFX reference product (IFX-RP; Remicade).

Methods

Adult patients were recruited during usual care at 38 sites in Europe and Canada and enrolled by their physicians after meeting eligibility criteria according to the country-approved label for CT-P13. Primary outcomes were to determine drug utilization and treatment persistence and to assess safety. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Data were analysed and reported descriptively.

Results

Of 351 patients enrolled, 334 were included in the analysis (RA, 40.4%; AS, 34.7%; PsA, 24.9%). The safety analysis set comprised all 328 patients treated with CT-P13. The majority (58.2%) of patients received CT-P13 monotherapy, most (72.6%) by dosing every 6 or 8 weeks. The mean treatment persistence was 449.2 days; 62.3% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. In all, 214 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.4% of patients. Most TEAEs were of mild or moderate intensity; 13 were severe. The most commonly reported TEAEs were drug ineffective (9.5%) and infusion-related reactions (5.2%). The most frequently reported infection-related TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infections (3.0%), nasopharyngitis (2.1%) and bronchitis (1.5%). No patients experienced tuberculosis.

Conclusion

Drug utilization and treatment persistence with CT-P13 were consistent with historical reports of IFX-RP in this patient population. Safety findings did not identify new concerns for CT-P13 in the treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605642.

Etanercept or Methotrexate Withdrawal in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Sustained Remission

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom remission is achieved following combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept face an ongoing medication burden. This study was undertaken to investigate whether sustained remission achieved on combination therapy can be maintained with either methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy, as assessed following discontinuation of one or the other medication from the combination.

METHODS

Of the 371 adult patients with RA who received combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept, remission (defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score of ≤3.3) was sustained in 253 patients through a 24-week open-label period. These 253 patients then entered a 48-week, double-blind period and were randomized to receive either 1) methotrexate monotherapy (n = 101), 2) etanercept monotherapy (n = 101), or 3) methotrexate plus etanercept combination therapy (n = 51). Patients who subsequently experienced disease-worsening received rescue therapy with the combination regimen at the same dosages as used in the initial run-in period. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was maintained without disease-worsening at week 48 in the etanercept monotherapy group as compared to the methotrexate monotherapy group. Secondary end points included time to disease-worsening, and the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was recaptured after initiation of rescue therapy.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the RA patients were similar across the treatment groups. At week 48, SDAI-defined remission was maintained in significantly more patients in the etanercept monotherapy group than in the methotrexate monotherapy group (49.5% versus 28.7%; P = 0.004). Moreover, as a secondary end point, sustained SDAI-defined remission was achieved in significantly more patients who received combination therapy than in those who received methotrexate monotherapy (52.9% versus 28.7%; P = 0.006). Time to disease-worsening was shorter in those who received methotrexate monotherapy than in those who received etanercept monotherapy or those who received combination therapy (each P < 0.001 versus methotrexate monotherapy). Among the patients who received rescue therapy, SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in 70-80% in each treatment group. No new safety signals were reported.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of etanercept monotherapy was superior to that of methotrexate monotherapy and similar to that of combination therapy in maintaining remission in patients with RA. SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in most of the patients who were given rescue therapy. These data could inform decision-making when withdrawal of therapy is being considered to reduce treatment burden in patients with well-controlled RA.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear.

METHODS

In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

An open-label randomized controlled trial of DMARD withdrawal in RA patients achieving therapeutic response with certolizumab pegol combined with DMARDs

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this trial was to compare effectiveness of certolizumab pegol added to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in RA patients, followed by continuing vs discontinuing background csDMARDs after treatment response.

METHODS

Patients with active RA who had certolizumab pegol added to their existing csDMARD regimen due to inadequate response were eligible. At 3 or 6 months, patients who achieved a change (Δ) in DAS28 of ⩾1.2 were randomized to continue combination therapy (COMBO) or withdraw csDMARD therapy (MONO) (unblinded). The primary outcome was non-inferiority of stopping vs continuing csDMARD(s) in terms of maintaining ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2 or achieving DAS28 low disease activity at 18 months (non-inferiority margin: 15 percentile units).

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were enrolled, 88 randomized to COMBO (n = 43) or MONO (n = 45). No significant differences were observed between groups in baseline age, gender, race, RF status or prior biologics (16% vs 11%). Although the rate of ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2 and/or DAS28 low disease activity achievement at 18 months was clinically comparable between the two groups (72% vs 69%), non-inferiority assumptions were not met [absolute risk difference (upper limit of 90% CI): 2.6% (19.1%)]. Similar baseline-adjusted improvements were seen in DAS28 (COMBO vs MONO: -2.3 vs -2.1; P = 0.49) and all endpoints were not statistically different including 59% vs 56% achieved DAS28 low disease activity, 69% vs 59% ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2, and 41% each remission.

CONCLUSION

Among RA patients achieving a therapeutic response on combination therapy with certolizumab pegol and csDMARDs, withdrawing csDMARDs was not non-inferior to maintaining csDMARDs but improvements were sustained in both groups at 18 months.

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).

Experience with tofacitinib in Canada: patient characteristics and treatment patterns in rheumatoid arthritis over 3 years

OBJECTIVES

To describe characteristics, treatment patterns and persistence in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in Canadian clinical practice between 1 June 2014 and 31 May 2017.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the tofacitinib eXel support programme. Baseline demographics and medication history were collected via patient report/special authorization forms; reasons for discontinuation were captured by patient report. Treatment persistence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, with data censored at last follow-up. Cox regression was applied to analyse baseline characteristics associated with treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

The number of patients with RA enrolled from 2014 to 2017 was 4276; tofacitinib utilization increased during that period, as did the proportion of biologic (b) DMARD-naïve patients prescribed tofacitinib. Of patients who initiated tofacitinib, 1226/3678 (33.3%) discontinued, mostly from lack of efficacy (35.7%) and adverse events (26.9%). Persistence was 62.7% and 49.6% after 1 and 2 years of treatment, respectively. Prior bDMARD experience predicted increased tofacitinib discontinuation (vs bDMARD-naïve, P < 0.001). Increased retention was associated with older age (56-65 years and >65 years vs ⩽45 years; P < 0.05), and time since diagnosis of 15 to <20 years (vs <5 years; P < 0.01). In bDMARD-naïve, post-1 bDMARD, post-2 bDMARD and post-⩾3 bDMARD patients, median survival was >730, 613, 667 and 592 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Since 2014, tofacitinib use in Canadian patients with RA increased, especially among bDMARD-naïve/post-1 bDMARD patients. Median drug survival was ∼2 years. Likelihood of persistence increased for bDMARD-naïve (vs bDMARD-experienced) patients and those aged ⩾56 (vs ⩽45) years.

SAT0151 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-CHOICE): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, selective JAK 1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy/safety of UPA has been demonstrated in phase 3 studies, including superiority to adalimumab in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.1-4

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy/safety of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) in pts with prior IR or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

Methods:

Pts were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg or intravenous ABA (at Day 1, Weeks [Wks] 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 [< 60 kg: 500 mg; 60-100 kg: 750 mg; >100 kg: 1,000 mg]), with all pts continuing background stable csDMARDs. The study was double-blind for 24 wks. Starting at Wk 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement from baseline (BL) in both tender and swollen joint counts at two consecutive visits, had background medication(s) adjusted or initiated. The primary endpoint was change from BL in DAS28(CRP) at Wk 12 (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority of UPA vs ABA was tested using the 95% CI of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6. The two key secondary endpoints at Wk 12 were change from BL in DAS28(CRP) and the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission (CR) based on DAS28(CRP), defined as DAS28(CRP) <2.6. Both endpoints were to demonstrate the superiority of UPA vs. ABA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to Wk 24 for all pts who received at least one dose of study drug.

Results:

Of 612 pts treated; 67% of pts had received 1 prior bDMARD, 22% received 2 prior bDMARDs, and 10% received ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs. 549 (90%) completed 24 wks of treatment. Common reasons for study drug discontinuation were AEs (UPA, 3.6%; ABA, 2.6%) and withdrawal of consent (UPA, 1.7%; ABA, 2.6%).

Non-inferiority and superiority were met for UPA vs ABA at Wk 12 for change from BL in DAS28(CRP) (-2.52 vs -2.00; -0.52 [-0.69, -0.35]; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA). UPA also demonstrated superiority to ABA in achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (30.0% vs 13.3%; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA; Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity and remission rates were maintained through Wk 24. The proportions of pts achieving low disease activity (defined as DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses were greater with UPA compared with ABA at Wk 12 (nominal p <0.05). More stringent outcome measures – CR, ACR50, and ACR70 responses - remained higher with UPA than ABA through Wk 24 (nominal p <0.05). Incidence of serious TEAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, hepatic disorders, and CPK elevations were numerically higher with UPA versus ABA (Figure 2). Eight cases of herpes zoster were reported (4 in each treatment arm). No malignancies were reported. One case of adjudicated MACE, two adjudicated cases of VTE (1 pt with DVT and 1 pt with PE; both pts had at least one risk factor for VTE), and one treatment-emergent death were reported with UPA.

Conclusion:

In RA pts with a prior IR or intolerance to bDMARDs, UPA demonstrated superior improvement in signs and symptoms vs ABA based on change in DAS28(CRP) and in achieving CR at Wk 12. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the phase 3 RA studies with no new risks identified.

References:

[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503-12

[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788-800

[3]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513-24

[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303-11

Disclosure of Interests:

Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ying Zhang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Naomi Martin Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

AB0337 TOFACITINIB MONOTHERAPY OR COMBINED WITH METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SHOW SIMILAR RETENTION OVER FOUR YEARS. REPORT FROM RHUMADATA ®

Background:

Since the introduction of biologic agents around the turn of the century, the scientific evidence shows that the majority of agents, independent of the therapeutic target, have a better outcome when used in combination with methotrexate (MTX). In 2014, tofacitinib (TOFA), an agent targeting Janus kinase 1 and 3, has reached the Canadian market with data showing that the combination with MTX may not be necessary [1,2].

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy and retention rate of TOFA in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods:

Two cohorts of patients prescribed TOFA was created. The first cohort was formed of patients who were receiving MTX concomitantly with TOFA (COMBO) and the other of patients using TOFA in monotherapy (MONO). MONO patients either never use MTX or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at most 20% of the time they were on TOFA. COMBO patients received MTX at the time of TOFA initiation or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at least 80% of the time. For all those patients, baseline demographic data definitions. Disease activity score and HAQ-DI were compared from the initiation of TOFA to the last visit. Time to medication discontinuation was extracted, and survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier calculation for MONO and COMBO cohorts.

Results:

Overall, 194 patients were selected. Most were women (83%) on average younger than the men (men: 62.6 ± 11.0 years vs. women: 56.9 ± 12.1 years, p-value=0.0130). The patient’s assessments of global disease activity, pain and fatigue were respectively 5.0 ± 2.7, 5.2 ± 2.9, 5.1 ± 3.1 in the COMBO group and 6.2 ± 2.5, 6.5 ± 2.6, 6.3 ± 2.8 in the MONO group all differences being significant across groups. HAQ-DI at treatment initiation was 1.3 ± 0.7 and 1.5 ± 0.7 in the COMBO and MONO groups, respectively, p-value=0.0858. Similarly, the SDAI score at treatment initiation was 23.9 ± 9.4 and 25.2 ± 11.5, p-value=0.5546. Average changes in SDAI were -13.4 ± 15.5 (COMBO) and -8.9 ± 13.5 (MONO), p-value=0.1515, and changes in HAQ -0.21 ± 0.63 and -0.26 ± 0.74, p-value 0.6112. At treatment initiation, DAS28(4)ESR were 4.4 ± 1.4 (COMBO) and 4.6 ± 1.3 (MONO), p-value 0.5815, with respective average changes of -1.06 ± 2.07 and -0.70 ± 1.96, p-value=0.2852. The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the COMBO and MONO retention curves were not statistically different (log-rank p-value=0.9318).

Conclusion:

Sustainability of TOFA in MONO or COMBO are not statistically different as are the changes in DAS28(4)ESR and SDAI. Despite this result, some patients may still benefit from combination with MTX.

References:

[1]Product Monograph - XELJANZ ® (tofacitinib) tablets for oral administration Initial U.S. Approval: 2012.

[2] Reed GW, Gerber RA, Shan Y, et al. Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors as Monotherapy and Combination Therapy for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 9].Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(4):573–586. doi:10.1007/s40744-019-00177-4.

Disclosure of Interests:

Denis Choquette Grant/research support from: Rhumadata is supported by grants from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Consultant of: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Loïc Choquette Sauvageau: None declared, Isabelle Ferdinand Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Frédéric Massicotte Consultant of: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Janssen, Jean-Pierre Pelletier Shareholder of: ArthroLab Inc., Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica, Speakers bureau: TRB Chemedica and Mylan, Jean-Pierre Raynauld Consultant of: ArthroLab Inc., Marie-Anaïs Rémillard Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Diane Sauvageau: None declared, Édith Villeneuve Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme,

UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Louis Coupal: None declared

Methotrexate withdrawal in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who achieve low disease activity with tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate (ORAL Shift): a randomised, phase 3b/4, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib after methotrexate withdrawal in patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) with tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate.

METHODS

ORAL Shift was a phase 3b/4 non-inferiority trial in patients aged at least 18 years with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate done in 109 centres across 16 countries. After 24 weeks of open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate, patients who achieved LDA (clinical disease activity index [CDAI] ≤10) were randomly assigned 1:1 via an automated web-based response system to receive tofacitinib plus placebo (tofacitinib monotherapy; ie, masked methotrexate withdrawal) or continue tofacitinib plus methotrexate for 24 weeks in a double-blind manner. The primary endpoint was the least squares mean change from week 24 to week 48 in disease activity score in 28 joints with four variables, including erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]). The primary analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment in both phases, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment since enrolment. Non-inferiority of tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib plus methotrexate was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference in change in DAS28-4(ESR) between treatment groups was less than 0·6. Safety was assessed in both phases. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02831855, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 1, 2016, and Nov 1, 2017, 694 patients were enrolled in the open-label phase and 623 received study treatment for 24 weeks. 533 achieved CDAI-defined LDA and were randomly assigned into the double-blind phase (267 in the tofacitinib monotherapy group and 266 in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group). Three participants in the monotherapy group did not start treatment so were not included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (difference 0·30 [95% CI 0·12-0·48]). 107 (41%) of 264 patients in the tofacitinib monotherapy group and 109 (41%) of 266 in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group had adverse events; five patients from each group discontinued because of adverse events; two patients died in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group. No new safety findings were reported up to 48 weeks.

INTERPRETATION

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who achieve LDA with a combination of tofacitinib plus methotrexate may consider withdrawing methotrexate without significant worsening of disease activity or unexpected safety issues.

FUNDING

Pfizer.

Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes in Aboriginal Patients in Canada: A Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort Study Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Health inequities exist in chronic diseases for Aboriginal people. This study compared early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presentation, treatment, and outcomes between Aboriginal and white patients in a large Canadian cohort study.

METHODS

Longitudinal data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective multicenter early RA study, were analyzed for participants who self-identified as Aboriginal or white ethnicity. Disease characteristics at presentation, prognostic factors, frequency of remission, and disease-modifying therapy strategies were contrasted between population groups. Linear mixed models were used to estimate rates of change for disease activity measures over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

At baseline, 2,173 participants (100 Aboriginal and 2,073 white) had similar mean ± SD symptom duration (179 ± 91 days), 28-joint Disease Activity Scores (DAS28; 4.87 ± 1.48), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.88 ± 0.68) scores. Factors associated with poor prognosis were more frequently present in Aboriginal participants, but disease-modifying therapy selection and frequency of therapy escalation was similar between the 2 groups. DAS28 remission was achieved less frequently in Aboriginal than in white participants (adjusted odds ratio 0.39 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.62]). Results were primarily driven by slower improvement in swollen joint counts and nonsignificant improvement in patient global scores in Aboriginal participants. Pain levels remained higher in Aboriginal patients.

CONCLUSION

Aboriginal early RA patients experienced worse disease outcomes than their white counterparts. This may reflect unmeasured biologic differences and/or disparities in prognostic factors informed by inequities in determinants of health. The appropriateness of current treatment strategies applied in different contexts should be considered.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry

Background

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent).

Methods

Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

Tocilizumab Patterns of Use, Effectiveness, and Safety in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Final Results from a Set of Multi-National Non-Interventional Studies

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to observe the patterns of usage, efficacy, and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Data on the real-world usage, efficacy, and safety of TCZ were collected from patients during routine follow-up visits conducted over a 6-month period. Patients were grouped by previous exposure to biologic therapies (biologic exposed vs. biologic naive).

RESULTS

Of 1912 patients enrolled from 16 countries, 639 (33.4%) received TCZ monotherapy and 1273 (66.6%) received TCZ combination therapy. At baseline, 1073 patients (56.1%) were biologic naive and 839 (43.9%) were biologic exposed. At 6 months, 1504 patients (78.7%) continued to receive TCZ treatment, with no descriptive differences in retention rates between biologic-exposed and biologic-naive patients and between patients receiving TCZ monotherapy or combination therapy. Dose and use of methotrexate and prednisone were reduced at 6 months. Efficacy at 6 months, including patient-reported outcomes, was demonstrated in both biologic-naive and biologic-exposed groups. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 817 patients [42.7%; incidence rate: 179 events per 100 patient-years (PY)], and serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 118 patients (6.2%; 17 events per 100 PY), with comparable rates of AEs and SAEs between subgroups.

CONCLUSION

In routine clinical practice, TCZ discontinuation rates were low and unaffected by prior use of biologics. Effectiveness was similar between groups, and no new safety signals were identified.

FUNDING

F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Persistence of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Open-Label, Long-Term Extension Studies up to 9.5 Years

Objective

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post hoc analysis evaluated tofacitinib persistence in patients with RA in long‐term extension (LTE) studies up to 9.5 years.

Methods

Data were pooled from two LTE studies: ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699) and Study A3921041 (NCT00661661). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), as monotherapy or with background conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. Kaplan‐Meier estimates for tofacitinib drug survival and reasons for discontinuation were evaluated. Baseline factors were analyzed as predictors of persistence.

Results

In 4967 tofacitinib‐treated patients entering LTE studies, mean (maximum) treatment duration was 3.5 (9.4) years. Median drug survival (95% confidence interval) was 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) years. Estimated 2‐ and 5‐year drug survival rates were 75.5% and 49.4%, respectively. Median drug survival was similar between the tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID groups, and slightly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy versus combination therapy. Overall, 50.7% of patients discontinued tofacitinib; of these, 47.2% were due to adverse events and 7.1% for lack/loss of efficacy. An increased risk of discontinuation was associated with baseline diabetes, hypertension, negative anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti‐CCP), negative rheumatoid factor (RF), and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi‐IR).

Conclusion

Median drug survival of tofacitinib‐treated patients participating in LTE studies was approximately 5 years and was similar for tofacitinib dosed at 5 and 10 mg BID. Reduced drug survival was associated with negative anti‐CCP/RF status, TNFi‐IR, and certain comorbidities. These data support tofacitinib use for long‐term management of RA.

Effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Canadian practice: 2-year results from the observational FαsT-CAN study

Background:

The aim of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and the impact on patients’ productivity, pain, and fatigue, in Canadian practice.

Methods:

FαsT-CAN, a 2-year prospective, observational study, evaluated CZP use in Canadian adults with moderate to severe, active RA. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients achieving 28-joint Disease Activity Scores (DAS28) <2.6 at Week 104. Secondary and additional endpoints assessed the improvements in Patients’ Assessment of Arthritis Pain (PtAAP), fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in HAQ-DI. Validated arthritis-specific Work Productivity Surveys (WPS-RA) assessed the RA-associated impact on productivity. Incidence of CZP-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was reported for patients receiving ⩾1 dose of CZP (safety set).

Results:

The full analysis set (baseline DAS28 ⩾ 2.6, ⩾1 dose of CZP and ⩾1 valid post-baseline DAS28 measurement) included 451 of the 546 patients recruited into the study; a total of 229/451 (50.8%) patients completed Week 104. At Week 104, 90/451 (20.0%) patients achieved DAS28 < 2.6. Rapid improvements in disease activity, pain, and fatigue were observed. At Week 104, 66.2% of patients achieved HAQ-DI MCID. Patients employed at Week 104, reported reduced absenteeism, and improved productivity. CZP-related TEAEs were consistent with the known CZP safety profile.

Conclusions:

CZP was an effective RA treatment in Canadian practice, and no new CZP-related safety signals were identified. The improvements in household and workplace productivity are the first observations in a real-world Canadian setting.

Vaccination Guidelines for Patients with Immune-mediated Disorders Taking Immunosuppressive Therapies: Executive Summary

The use of immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated disease is associated with an elevated risk of infections and related comorbidities. While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal, due in part to uncertainty about their efficacy or safety under these clinical situations. To address this concern, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian physicians with expertise in dermatology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and rheumatology developed evidence-based clinical guidelines on vaccinations featuring 13 statements that are aimed at reducing the risk of preventable infections in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents.

Vaccination Guidelines for Patients with Immune-Mediated Disorders on Immunosuppressive Therapies-Executive Summary

The use of immunosuppressive therapies for immune-mediated disease (IMD) is associated with an elevated risk of infections and related comorbidities. While many infectious diseases can generally be prevented by vaccines, immunization rates in this specific patient population remain suboptimal, due in part to uncertainty about their efficacy or safety under these clinical situations. To address this concern, a multidisciplinary group of Canadian physicians with expertise in dermatology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases and rheumatology developed evidence-based clinical guidelines on vaccinations featuring 13 statements that are aimed at reducing the risk of preventable infections in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive agents.

Vaccination Guidelines for Patients With Immune-Mediated Disorders on Immunosuppressive Therapies

BACKGROUND:

Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations.

METHODS:

A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS:

Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ⩾12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

Real-World Tocilizumab Use in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Canada: 12-Month Results From an Observational, Noninterventional Study

Introduction

This study was conducted to observe patterns of use of the interleukin-6 receptor-alpha inhibitor tocilizumab in routine clinical practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This was a 12-month noninterventional, observational study in adult patients with RA who initiated tocilizumab in routine practice in Canada according to the local product monograph. The primary end point was the proportion of patients receiving tocilizumab at 6 months. Secondary end points were treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of tocilizumab over 12 months.

Results

Of 200 patients who initiated tocilizumab (91.0% at 8 mg/kg), 67 (33.5%) received tocilizumab monotherapy and 133 (66.5%) received tocilizumab combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Kaplan–Meier analysis estimated that 85% (95% CI 74–92%) of monotherapy and 89% (95% CI 82–93%) of combination therapy patients continued to receive tocilizumab at 6 months (log-rank p = 0.0888). During the observation period, 12 (17.9%) monotherapy and 27 (20.3%) combination therapy patients withdrew from the study. At month 12, 58.5% in the monotherapy group and 59.3% in the combination therapy group achieved Disease Activity Score at 28 joints remission (≤ 2.6), 25.6% and 24.7% achieved Simplified Disease Activity Index remission (≤ 3.3), and 18.2% and 22.3% achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤ 2.8), respectively. Rates of serious adverse events and serious infections were found in 29.6/100 patient-years (PY) and 3.1/100 PY, respectively, for monotherapy and 19.2/100 PY and 4.8/100 PY, respectively, for combination therapy.

Conclusions

Patients initiating tocilizumab in routine practice had comparable effectiveness and safety outcomes regardless of whether they received tocilizumab as monotherapy or as combination therapy with csDMARDs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01613378

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche) Canada.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-018-0130-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dose reduction of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving sustained disease control: results of a prospective study

Objectives

This study investigated the effects of dose step-down in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved sustained disease control with baricitinib 4 mg once a day.

Methods

Patients who completed a baricitinib phase 3 study could enter a long-term extension (LTE). In the LTE, patients who received baricitinib 4 mg for ≥15 months and maintained CDAI low disease activity (LDA) or remission (REM) were blindly randomised to continue 4 mg or taper to 2 mg. Patients could rescue (to 4 mg) if needed. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks.

Results

Patients in both groups maintained LDA (80% 4 mg; 67% 2 mg) or REM (40% 4 mg; 33% 2 mg) over 48 weeks. However, dose reduction resulted in small, statistically significant increases in disease activity at 12, 24 and 48 weeks. Dose reduction also produced earlier and more frequent relapse (loss of step-down criteria) over 48 weeks compared with 4 mg maintenance (23% 4 mg vs 37% 2 mg, p=0.001). Rescue rates were 10% for baricitinib 4 mg and 18% for baricitinib 2 mg. Dose reduction was associated with a numerically lower rate of non-serious infections (30.6 for baricitinib 4 mg vs 24.9 for 2 mg). Rates of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar across groups.

Conclusions

In a large randomised, blinded phase 3 study, maintenance of RA control following induction of sustained LDA/REM with baricitinib 4 mg was greater with continued 4 mg than after taper to 2 mg. Nonetheless, most patients tapered to 2 mg could maintain LDA/REM or recapture with return to 4 mg if needed.

Overweight, Obesity, and the Likelihood of Achieving Sustained Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Obesity is implicated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development, severity, outcomes, and treatment response. We estimated the independent effects of overweight and obesity on ability to achieve sustained remission (sREM) in the 3 years following RA diagnosis.

METHODS

Data were from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a multicenter observational trial of early RA patients treated by rheumatologists using guideline-based care. sREM was defined as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) <2.6 for 2 consecutive visits. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI) as healthy (18.5-24.9 kg/m² ), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m² ), and obese (≥30 kg/m² ). Cox regression was used to estimate the effect of the BMI category on the probability of achieving sREM over the first 3 years, controlling for age, sex, race, education, RA duration, smoking status, comorbidities, baseline DAS28, Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index, C-reactive protein level, and initial treatment.

RESULTS

Of 982 patients, 315 (32%) had a healthy BMI, 343 (35%) were overweight, and 324 (33%) were obese; 355 (36%) achieved sREM within 3 years. Initial treatment did not differ by BMI category. Compared to healthy BMI, overweight patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.58-0.98]) and obese patients (HR 0.53 [95% CI 0.39-0.71]) were significantly less likely to achieve sREM.

CONCLUSION

Rates of overweight and obesity were high (69%) in this early RA cohort. Overweight patients were 25% less likely, and obese patients were 47% less likely, to achieve sREM in the first 3 years, despite similar initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment and subsequent biologic use. This is the largest study demonstrating the negative impact of excess weight on RA disease activity and supports a call to action to better identify and address this risk in RA patients.

High Adherence to System-Level Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis in a National Early Arthritis Cohort Over Eight Years

OBJECTIVE

To assess adherence to 3 system-level performance measures in a national early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) cohort.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (2007-2015) who met 1987 or 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria with <1 year of symptom duration and ≥1 year of followup after enrollment were included. Performance measures assessed were the percentage of RA patients seen in yearly followup, and the number of gaps between visits of >12 or >14 months, the percentage of RA patients treated with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and days from RA diagnosis to initiation of a DMARD. Results are shown stratified by enrollment year to assess for temporal changes in performance.

RESULTS

A total of 1,763 early RA patients were included (mean age 54 years, 73% female, and 82% white). At enrollment, mean ± SD disease duration was 6 ± 3 months, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints was 5.1 ± 1.5. Over 8 years, the proportion of patients seen in annual followup declined from 100% to 91%. Over followup, 42% of patients had 0 gaps in care of >12 months, and 64% had 0 gaps >14 months. The percentage of DMARD-treated early RA patients was and remained high (95-87%), and the percentage receiving DMARDs within 14 days of diagnosis was 75%. Median time-to-DMARD therapy was 1 day, indicating DMARDs were initiated at diagnosis (90th percentile 93 days).

CONCLUSION

There was evidence of high adherence to system-level performance measures in this early RA cohort following a protocol. Small declines in performance were noted with increasing length of patient followup. Our findings are useful for performance measure benchmarking.

Use of a baseline risk score to identify the risk of serious infectious events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during certolizumab pegol treatment

BACKGROUND

The risk of serious infectious events (SIEs) is increased in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to develop an age-adjusted comorbidity index (AACI) to predict, using baseline characteristics, the SIE risk in patients with RA treated with certolizumab pegol (CZP).

METHODS

Data of CZP-treated patients with RA were pooled from the RAPID1/RAPID2 randomized controlled trials (RCT CZP) and their open-label extensions (All CZP). Predictors of the first SIE were examined using multivariate Cox models. The AACI was developed by assigning specific weights to patient age and comorbidities on the basis of relative SIE risk. SIE rates were predicted using AACI score and baseline glucocorticoid use, and they were compared with observed rates. The percentage of patients in each SIE risk group achieving low disease activity (LDA)/remission was examined at 1 year of treatment.

RESULTS

Among 1224 RCT CZP patients, 40 reported ≥ 1 SIE (incidence rate [IR] 5.09/100 patient-years [PY]), and 201 of 1506 All CZP patients reported ≥ 1 SIE (IR 3.66/100 PY). Age ≥ 70 years, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma made the greatest contributions to AACI score. SIE rates predicted using AACI and glucocorticoid use at baseline showed good agreement with observed SIE rates across low-risk and high-risk groups. At 1 year, more high-risk All CZP patients than low-risk All CZP patients reported SIEs (IR 8.4/100 PY vs. IR 3.4/100 PY). Rates of LDA/remission were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AACI and glucocorticoid use were strong baseline predictors of SIE risk in CZP-treated patients with RA. Predicted SIE risk was not associated with patients' likelihood of clinical response. This SIE risk score may provide a valuable tool for clinicians when considering the risk of infection in individual patients with RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00152386 (registered 7 September 2005); NCT00160602 (registered 8 September 2005); NCT00175877 (registered 9 September 2005); and NCT00160641 (registered 8 September 2005).

Dose Escalation and Co-therapy Intensification Between Etanercept, Adalimumab, and Infliximab: The CADURA Study

Objective

To compare anti-TNF dose escalation, DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification, switches to another biologic, and drug and drug-related costs over 12 and 18 months for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (IFX) in routine clinical practice across Canada.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of biologic-naïve adult RA patients newly initiating ADA, ETN, or IFX between January 01, 2006 and December 31, 2012 from 11 practices across Canada.

Results

There were 314 patients in the 12-month analysis and 217 in the 18-month analysis. No dose escalation occurred with ETN over 12 and 18 months versus 38% and 32% for IFX (p<0.001) and 2% and 2% for ADA (p=0.199, p=0.218). Over 18 months, dose escalation and/or DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification was less frequent among ETN (16%) versus IFX (44%, p=0.005) and ADA (34%, p=0.004). By 18 months, 22% of patients initiating ADA had switched to another biologic compared with 6% of ETN patients (p=0.001).Patients initiating ETN had lower total (drug and drug-related) costs over 12 and 18 months compared to IFX, and no difference compared to ADA when adjusted for potential confounders. Patients with dose escalation had higher costs compared to those with no dose escalation.

Conclusion

Physicians were more likely to escalate the dose of IFX, but optimize co-therapy with ADA and ETN. ETN patients had no dose escalation and were less likely to have DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification than ADA patients. ETN-treated patients had lower costs compared to IFX patients.

Thresholds for the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein are lower compared to DAS28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate in early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP) and DAS28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) may not be interchangeable. We sought to compare and estimate optimal thresholds for the DA28-CRP for use in early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

Patients from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort with baseline and 12 months' data for both DAS28-ESR and DAS28-CRP were examined for correlations and differences between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR across their range of values. Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified thresholds for DAS28-CRP that best corresponded to established thresholds for the DAS28-ESR using the total sample, then stratified by age and sex. Agreement between DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR thresholds was assessed with the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

The sample included 995 patients with mean (SD) age of 53.7 (14.5) years, 5.8 (2.9) months of symptom duration and 74% were female. DAS28-CRP and DAS28-ESR scores were highly correlated (r= 0.92, p<0.0001), however DAS28-CRP values were consistently lower than DAS28-ESR values. Calculated thresholds for DAS28-CRP were lower with 2.5 for remission, 2.9 for low disease activity, and 4.6 for high disease activity but showed moderate agreement with the DAS28-ESR thresholds (kappa=0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large sample of ERA patients, newly estimated thresholds for DAS28-CRP were consistently lower than DAS28-ESR thresholds across the spectrum of disease activity. This may have important clinical implications if inflammatory markers are used interchangeably. Additional external validation of our findings is needed.

Real-world validation of the minimal disease activity index in psoriatic arthritis: an analysis from a prospective, observational, biological treatment registry

OBJECTIVE

To describe the minimal disease activity (MDA) rate over time in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving antitumour necrosis factor agents, evaluate prognostic factors of MDA achievement and identify the most common unmet criteria among MDA achievers.

DESIGN

Biologic Treatment Registry Across Canada (BioTRAC): ongoing, prospective registry of patients initiating treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis or PsA with infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GLM) or ustekinumab.

SETTING

46 primary-care Canadian rheumatology practices.

PARTICIPANTS

223 patients with PsA receiving IFX (enrolled since 2005) and GLM (enrolled since 2010) with available MDA information at baseline, 6 months and/or 12 months.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

MDA was defined as ≥5 of the following criteria: 28-item tender joint count (TJC28) ≤1, 28-item swollen joint count (SJC28) ≤1, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤1 or body surface area≤3, Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ≤15 mm, patient's global assessment (PtGA) (VAS) ≤20 mm, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) ≤0.5, tender entheseal points ≤1. Independent prognostic factors of MDA achievement were assessed with multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

MDA was achieved by 11.7% of patients at baseline, 43.5% at 6 months, 44.8% at 12 months and 48.8% at either 6 or 12 months. Among MDA achievers at 6 months, 75.7% had sustained MDA at 12 months. Lower baseline HAQ (OR=0.210; 95% CI: 0.099 to 0.447) and lower TJC28 (OR=0.880; 95% CI: 0.804 to 0.964), were significant prognostic factors of MDA achievement over 12 months of treatment. The most commonly unmet MDA criteria among MDA achievers was patient reported pain (25%), PtGA (15%) and PASI (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 50% of patients treated with IFX or GLM in routine clinical care achieved MDA within the first year of treatment. Lower baseline HAQ and lower TJC28, were identified as significant prognostic factors of MDA achievement. The most commonly unmet criteria in patients who achieved MDA were pain, PtGA and PASI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

BioTRAC (NCT00741793).

The effect of rheumatoid arthritis-associated autoantibodies on the incidence of cardiovascular events in a large inception cohort of early inflammatory arthritis

Objective

. RA is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs). The objective was to estimate independent effects of RA autoantibodies on the incident CVEs in patients with early RA.

Methods

Patients were enrolled in the Canadian Early Inflammatory Arthritis Cohort, a prospective multicentre inception cohort. Incident CVEs, including acute coronary syndromes and cerebrovascular events, were self-reported by the patient and partially validated by medical chart review. Seropositive status was defined as either RF or ACPA positive. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards survival analysis was used to estimate the effects of seropositive status on incident CVEs, controlling for RA clinical variables and traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

Results

. A total of 2626 patients were included: the mean symptom duration at diagnosis was 6.3 months ( s . d . 4.6), the mean age was 53 years ( s . d . 15), 72% were female and 86% met classification criteria for RA. Forty-six incident CVEs occurred over 6483 person-years [incidence rate 7.1/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval 5.3, 9.4)]. The CVE rate did not differ in seropositive vs seronegative subjects and seropositivity was not associated with incident CVEs in multivariable Cox regression models. Baseline covariates independently associated with incident CVEs were older age, a history of hypertension and a longer duration of RA symptoms prior to diagnosis.

Conclusion

The rate of CVEs early in the course of inflammatory arthritis was low; however, delays in the diagnosis of arthritis increased the rate of CVEs. Hypertension was the strongest independent risk factor for CVEs. Results support early aggressive management of RA disease activity and co-morbidities to prevent severe complications.

Head-to-head comparison of certolizumab pegol versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year efficacy and safety results from the randomised EXXELERATE study

BACKGROUND

To date, head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs within the same class, including TNF inhibitors, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different TNF inhibitors and to assess the efficacy and safety of switching to the other TNF inhibitor without a washout period after insufficient primary response to the first TNF inhibitor at week 12.

METHODS

In this 104-week, randomised, single-blind (double-blind until week 12 and investigator blind thereafter), parallel-group, head-to-head superiority study (EXXELERATE), eligible patients from 151 centres worldwide were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at screening, as defined by the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria, and had prognostic factors for severe disease progression, including a positive rheumatoid factor, or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody result, or both. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system with no stratification to receive certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate or adalimumab plus methotrexate. All study staff were kept masked throughout the study and participants were masked until week 12. At week 12, patients were classified as responders (by either achieving low disease activity [LDA] according to Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≤3·2 or DAS28-ESR reduction ≥1·2 from baseline) or as non-responders. Non-responders to the first TNF inhibitor to which they were randomised were switched to the other TNF inhibitor with no washout period. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a 20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and LDA at week 104 (week 12 non-responders were considered LDA non-responders). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500278.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 14, 2011, and Nov 11, 2013, 1488 patients were screened of whom 915 were randomly assigned; 457 to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 458 to adalimumab plus methotrexate. No statistically significant difference was observed in ACR20 response at week 12 (314 [69%] of 454 patients and 324 [71%] of 454 patients; odds ratio [OR] 0·90 [95% CI 0·67-1·20]; p=0·467) or DAS28-ESR LDA at week 104 (161 [35%] of 454 patients and 152 [33%] of 454 patients; OR 1·09 [0·82-1·45]; p=0·532) between certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and adalimumab plus methotrexate, respectively. At week 12, 65 non-responders to certolizumab pegol were switched to adalimumab and 57 non-responders to adalimumab were switched to certolizumab pegol; 33 (58%) of 57 patients switching to certolizumab pegol and 40 (62%) of 65 patients switching to adalimumab responded 12 weeks later by achieving LDA or a DAS28-ESR reduction 1·2 or greater. 389 [75%] of 516 patients who received certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate and 386 [74%] of 523 patients who received adalimumab plus methotrexate reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Three deaths (1%) occurred in each group. No serious infection events were reported in the 70-day period after treatment switch.

INTERPRETATION

These results show that certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate is not superior to adalimumab plus methotrexate. The data also show the clinical benefit and safety of switching to a second TNF inhibitor without a washout period after primary failure to a first TNF inhibitor.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

Predicting Low Disease State and Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in the First Six Months, Comparing the Simplified Disease Activity Index and European League Against Rheumatism Response Measures: Results From an Early Arthritis Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and Simplified Disease Activity Index 50% (SDAI50) response measures (RMs) and their impact on future response to treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

Biologic agent-naive ERA patients from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort study with complete data at baseline, 3, and 6 months were evaluated. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate the agreement between the EULAR (moderate or good response) and SDAI50 RMs. The RMs at 3 months were also compared for their ability to predict low disease activity state (LDAS) or remission (REM) at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1,124 patients were evaluated. Of those, 215 patients (30%) and 294 patients (45%) failed to achieve a EULAR and SDAI50 response, respectively. There was a good agreement between EULAR and SDAI50 RMs with a kappa of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.66). Throughout the range of disease activity, the SDAI50 response was shown to be more stringent than the EULAR response. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that both RMs at 3 months were associated with LDAS or REM at 6 months, and SDAI50 had a more significant impact on this outcome compared to the EULAR response.

CONCLUSION

There is a good agreement between the EULAR and SDAI50 RMs. Although a minority of patients have discordant RMs at each end of the disease activity spectrum at baseline, the SDAI50 response at 3 months appears to be a more significant predictor of outcomes at 6 months than EULAR response.