Having More Tender Than Swollen Joints is Associated With Worse Function and Work Impairment in Patients With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may present with more tender than swollen joints, which can persist. Elevated tender-swollen joint difference (TSJD) is often challenging, because there may be multiple causes and it may contribute to overestimating disease activity. Little is known about the phenotype and impact of TSJDs on patient function. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of TSJD on functional outcomes in early RA and to see whether associations vary by joint size.

METHODS

Data were from patients with active, early RA (≤12 months) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, who completed assessments of general function (Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire [MDHAQ]), upper extremity (UE) function (Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders [Neuro-QoL] UE scale), and work/activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment RA) over their first year of follow-up. A total of 28 joint counts were performed. TSJDs were calculated. Adjusted associations between TSJDs and functional outcomes were estimated in separate multivariable linear mixed effects models. Separate analyses were performed for large- versus small-joint TSJD.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 547) were 70% female, mean age 56 (SD 15) years, mean disease duration 5.3 (SD 2.9) months. At baseline, 287 (52%) had TSJD >0 (43% involved large joints and 34% small joints), decreasing to 32% at 12 months. A one-point increase in TSJD was significantly associated with worse function (MDHAQ: adjusted mean change 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.13; Neuro-QoL UE function T score: adjusted mean change -0.59, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.43; and greater work impairment: adjusted mean change 1.95%, 95% CI 0.85%-3.05%). Higher large-joint TSJDs were associated with the worst functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Having more tender than swollen joints is common in early RA and is associated with worse function, most notably when involving large joints. Early identification and targeted intervention strategies may be needed.

Associations Between Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Factors and Synovial Cell Types and States

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have uncovered diverse cell types and states in the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) synovium; however, limited data exist correlating these findings with patient-level clinical information. Using the largest cohort to date with clinical and multicell data, we determined associations between RA clinical factors with cell types and states in the RA synovium.

METHODS

The Accelerated Medicines Partnership Rheumatoid Arthritis study recruited patients with active RA who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. RA clinical factors were systematically collected. Biopsies were performed on an inflamed joint, and tissue were disaggregated and processed with a cellular indexing of transcriptomes and epitopes sequencing pipeline from which the following cell type percentages and cell type abundance phenotypes (CTAPs) were derived: endothelial, fibroblast, and myeloid (EFM); fibroblasts; myeloid; T and B cells; T cells and fibroblasts (TF); and T and myeloid cells. Correlations were measured between RA clinical factors, cell type percentage, and CTAPs.

RESULTS

We studied 72 patients (mean age 57 years, 75% women, 83% seropositive, mean RA duration 6.6 years, mean Disease Activity Score-28 C-reactive Protein 3 [DAS28-CRP3] score 4.8). Higher DAS28-CRP3 correlated with a higher T cell percentage (P < 0.01). Those receiving MTX and not a biologic DMARD (bDMARD) had a higher percentage of B cells versus those receiving no DMARDs (P < 0.01). Most of those receiving bDMARDs were categorized as EFM (57%), whereas none were TF. No significant difference was observed across CTAPs for age, sex, RA disease duration, or DAS28-CRP3.

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive screen of clinical factors, we observed differential associations between DMARDs and cell phenotypes, suggesting that RA therapies, more than other clinical factors, may impact cell type/state in the synovium and ultimately influence response to subsequent therapies.

The Gap in Knowledge about Tapering Targeted Therapy being used as Monotherapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with RA are being treated with biologic (b)-disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as monotherapy. Monotherapy with Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors(i) and Janus-kinase (JAK)-i has been shown to be effective. Whether patients can taper targeted therapy (bDMARDs and JAK-i) used as monotherapy (targeted monotherapy) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of tapering of targeted monotherapy in patients with controlled RA.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library for prospective studies reporting remission outcomes after tapering targeted monotherapy in RA patients, from 1/2014 - 8 /2021.

RESULTS

5 randomized studies which met our inclusion criteria, evaluating tapering of monotherapy with tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors, tocilizumab, abatacept and baricitinib in RA. Studies were heterogeneous. Three trials studied early RA. Three studies gradually tapered therapy, including 1 dose reduction study. Three studies tapered both biological and conventional-synthetic (cs)-DMARDs. No study compared stopping targeted monotherapy to continuing it. Remission rates were low 14-28% across all studies that stopped targeted monotherapy. The highest remission rate of 72% was reported by the dose reduction study. Trials that studied early RA reported remission rates after tapering ranging 27-72%. Trials tapering therapy in established RA reported rates of remission from 14-20%.

CONCLUSION

There is a crucial gap in published literature to inform on tapering targeted monotherapy in patients with RA. Stopping targeted monotherapy is unlikely to maintain disease control in RA. Dose reduction strategies and early treatment of disease may be associated with more successful tapering, and warrant future study.

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).

Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab

OBJECTIVES

In some patients with RA, joint pain is more severe than expected based on the amount of joint swelling [referred to as disproportionate articular pain (DP)]. We assessed DP prevalence and the effects of sarilumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, on DP.

METHODS

Data from RA patients treated with placebo or 200 mg sarilumab in the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) MOBILITY and TARGET, adalimumab 40 mg or sarilumab 200 mg in the phase 3 RCT MONARCH and sarilumab 200 mg in open-label extensions (OLEs) were used. DP was defined as an excess tender 28-joint count (TJC28) over swollen 28-joint count (SJC28) of ≥7 (TJC28 - SJC28 ≥ 7). Treatment response and disease activity were determined for patients with and without DP.

RESULTS

Of 1531 sarilumab 200 mg patients from RCTs, 353 (23%) had baseline DP. On average, patients with DP had higher 28-joint DAS using CRP (DAS28-CRP) and pain scores than patients without DP, whereas CRP levels were similar. After 12 and 24 weeks, patients with baseline DP treated with sarilumab were more likely to be DP-free than those treated with placebo or adalimumab. In RCTs, more sarilumab-treated patients achieved low disease activity vs comparators, regardless of baseline DP status. In OLEs, patients were more likely to lose rather than gain DP status.

CONCLUSION

About one-quarter of patients with RA experienced DP, which responded well to sarilumab. These data support the concept that other mechanisms (potentially mediated via IL-6) in addition to inflammation may contribute to DP in RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT01061736, NCT02332590, NCT01709578, NCT01146652.

Deep immunophenotyping reveals circulating activated lymphocytes in individuals at risk for rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease with currently no universally highly effective prevention strategies. Identifying pathogenic immune phenotypes in 'At-Risk' populations prior to clinical disease onset is crucial to establishing effective prevention strategies. Here, we applied mass cytometry to deeply characterize the immunophenotypes in blood from At-Risk individuals identified through the presence of serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA) and/or first-degree relative (FDR) status (n=52), as compared to established RA (n=67), and healthy controls (n=48). We identified significant cell expansions in At-Risk individuals compared with controls, including CCR2+CD4+ T cells, T peripheral helper (Tph) cells, type 1 T helper cells, and CXCR5+CD8+ T cells. We also found that CD15+ classical monocytes were specifically expanded in ACPA-negative FDRs, and an activated PAX5 low naïve B cell population was expanded in ACPA-positive FDRs. Further, we developed an "RA immunophenotype score" classification method based on the degree of enrichment of cell states relevant to established RA patients. This score significantly distinguished At-Risk individuals from controls. In all, we systematically identified activated lymphocyte phenotypes in At-Risk individuals, along with immunophenotypic differences among both ACPA+ and ACPA-FDR At-Risk subpopulations. Our classification model provides a promising approach for understanding RA pathogenesis with the goal to further improve prevention strategies and identify novel therapeutic targets.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

To provide the initial installment of a living guideline that will provide up-to-date guidance on the pharmacological management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.

METHODS

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, and patients. In this first installment of our living guideline, the panel developed a recommendation for the tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) therapy in patients in sustained remission using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, including a health equity framework developed for the Canadian RA population. The recommendation was adapted from a living guideline of the Australia &amp; New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.

RESULTS

In people with RA who are in sustained low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months, we suggest offering stepwise reduction in the dose of b/tsDMARD without discontinuation, in the context of a shared decision, provided patients are able to rapidly access rheumatology care and reestablish their medications if needed. In patients where rapid access to care or reestablishing access to medications is challenging, we conditionally recommend against tapering. A patient decision aid was developed to complement the recommendation.

CONCLUSION

This living guideline will provide contemporary RA management recommendations for Canadian practice. New recommendations will be added over time and updated, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and Evidence to Decision summaries available through the CRA website (www.rheum.ca).

Association between low hemoglobin, clinical measures, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from post hoc analyses of three phase III trials of sarilumab

Background

Anemia is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Higher hemoglobin (Hb) levels may be associated with better clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To assess this hypothesis, we conducted two post hoc analyses in three sarilumab phase III studies: TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH.

Methods

Pooled data from combination therapy from placebo-controlled MOBILITY (sarilumab + methotrexate) and TARGET (sarilumab + conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs]) and monotherapy data from active-controlled MONARCH (sarilumab vs. adalimumab) studies were included. Associations between Hb levels and clinical measures and PROs were assessed over 24 weeks. The mean changes from baseline in clinical outcomes and PROs (to week 24) and radiographic outcomes (to week 52) were evaluated between low and normal Hb levels (based on the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria).

Results

From TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH, 546, 1197, and 369 patients, respectively, were stratified according to Hb levels (low vs. normal). Over 24 weeks, higher Hb levels were found to be consistently associated with better clinical outcomes and PROs in combination therapy and monotherapy groups and were more pronounced among the patients treated with sarilumab than those treated with placebo and adalimumab. The mean change from baseline to week 24 in clinical efficacy measures and PROs was similar in patients with low vs. normal Hb at baseline. Differences between sarilumab and/or adalimumab, for all outcomes, were larger for low Hb subgroups. In MOBILITY, by week 52, the inhibition of progression of structural damage (assessed via Modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS]) was 84% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with low Hb and 97% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with normal Hb. Similar results were observed for other radiographic outcomes.

Conclusions

In these post hoc analyses, a consistent relationship was observed between higher Hb levels and better clinical outcomes and PROs in patients with RA. Irrespective of the baseline Hb levels, sarilumab treatment was associated with improvements in clinical measures and PROs over 24 weeks (improvements were more pronounced than those with adalimumab treatment) and mitigation of joint damage progression over 52 weeks.

Trial registration

ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736, NCT01709578, and NCT02332590

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02891-x.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

BACKGROUND

Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway.

METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document.

RESULTS

The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

AB1180 COVID-19 HAD DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON RA SYMPTOMS AND FUNCTION BY SEX AND AGE: RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN EARLY ARTHRITIS COHORT (CATCH)

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians with RA faced considerable uncertainty due to greater risk of infection, hospitalization, changing access to RA medications, and very limited access to in-person RA care. Further, to reduce transmission of the virus and COVID-related hospitalizations, stringent mitigation measures were implemented across the country to greatly reduce social contacts including curfews, limits on private gatherings and business closures. Little is known about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation efforts in RA. We hypothesized that women and younger adults with RA would report greater impairments in HRQL.

Objectives

To compare changes in HRQL prior-to and during the COVID-19 pandemic by sex and age groups in real-world RA patients seen in routine practice settings.

Methods

Data were from patients in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) who completed a study visit in the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar 2019 through Feb 2020) and a repeat assessment during the pandemic period (Mar 2020 – Jan 2022). RA disease activity was assessed using the RA Flare Questionnaire, a validated patient-reported measure of current RA disease symptoms (pain, stiffness, fatigue) and function (physical, participation). An RA-FQ score ≥ 20 was used to classify RA symptoms consistent with an RA inflammatory flare. HRQL was assessed using PROMIS-29 Adult Profiles. We compared changes in mean Physical (PHS) and Mental Health (MHS) scores, and the proportion of patients with impairments in each domain (i.e., scores ≥ 55 for pain interference, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and sleep and ≤45 for physical function and participation) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across sex and age groups (<40, 40-64, ≥65 years).

Results

The 938 CATCH participants in the analytic sample with data available at both time periods had a mean (SD) age of 60 (13) and RA symptom duration of 5.8 (3.7) years; 72% were women, 88% were white, and 64% reported >high school education. Most (80%) were in CDAI REM/LDA at the most recent visit prior to start of pandemic. The proportion of patients with RA-FQ ≥20 were similar at both time periods. While physical and emotional RA symptom impacts remained stable in men prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, women reported significant increases in anxiety and depression during the pandemic period. Younger RA patients <40 reported increases in depression, and older RA patients (65+) reported increases in anxiety and greater impacts on participation.

Conclusion

Our results illustrate that while the proportions of patients with high inflammatory disease activity were similar prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed disproportionate impacts on HRQL by sex and age with a higher proportion of women, adults <40, and those ≥65 years of age experiencing greater impairments in several HRQL domains.

Table 1.DomainWomen (N = 673)Men (N=265)Age <40 (N=84)Age 45-64 (N=492)Age 65+ (N= 362)BeforeDuringBeforeDuringBeforeDuringBeforeDuringBeforeDuringRA Flare >20%17%21%19%18%13%7%18%21%18%21%Anxiety34%*42%*23%23%42%55%32%35%28%*35%*Depression28%*34%*22%20%25%*42%*28%28%24%30%Fatigue36%38%24%23%43%43%36%33%26%32%Pain47%52%48%45%39%48%46%49%49%54%Physical function54%57%46%46%40%40%49%50%59%62%Participation42%47%34%36%37%38%40%41%40%*49%*Sleep30%34%18%22%26%29%29%33%23%28%

*p <0.05

Acknowledgements

CATCH is supported through unrestricted research grants from: Amgen and Pfizer Canada since 2007; AbbVie since 2011; Medexus since 2013; Sandoz Canada since 2019; Fresenius Kabi Canada since 2021 and; Organon Canada since 2021. Previous funding from Janssen Canada (2011-16); UCB Canada and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada (2011-18); Hoffman La Roche (2011-21); Sanofi Genzyme (2016-17); Eli Lilly Canada (2016-20); Merck Canada (2017-21) and Gilead Sciences Canada (2020-21)

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0579 ABSENCE OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ABATACEPT EXPOSURE LEVELS AND INITIAL INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH RA: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED AVERT-2 STUDY

Background

Infections are the most commonly reported AE observed in patients with RA treated with immunosuppressive therapies and can be clinically significant. A recent review reported differences in the risk of infection for some biologics such as tocilizumab and TNF inhibitors.1 Abatacept selectively modulates T-cell co-stimulation and is approved for the treatment of RA. In patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis, no association was found between higher serum abatacept exposure and the incidence of infection.2 This has not been evaluated for adult patients with RA.

Objectives

To determine if higher serum abatacept exposure during treatment with SC abatacept was associated with increased risk of infection in adult patients with RA.

Methods

AVERT-2 (Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment-2) was a randomized, placebo-controlled study of SC abatacept + MTX vs abatacept placebo + MTX in MTX-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody–positive patients with early, active RA.3 A post hoc population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed using PK-evaluable patient data from the induction period (year 1) of AVERT-2. Association between steady-state abatacept exposure (min plasma concentration [Cmin], max plasma concentration [Cmax], and average plasma concentration [Cavg]) and first infection was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier plots of probability vs time on treatment by abatacept exposure quartiles and Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

PK of SC abatacept was defined as a linear 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and first-order elimination. The findings of the updated PK analysis were consistent with those reported in prior population analyses of abatacept PK in adults with RA. The final model included effects of baseline body weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate, sex, age, albumin, MTX use, NSAID use, SJC, and race on abatacept clearance. The only covariate with a clinically relevant effect was higher body weight, which caused an increase in clearance and volume. Infections occurred in a total of 330/693 (47.6%; serious, 1.6%) patients treated with abatacept, and 134/301 (44.5%; serious, 1.3%) with placebo during the first year of AVERT-2. In patients taking abatacept, the mean (SD) study exposure to abatacept was 376 (60) days, while mean (SD) prednisone equivalent dose was 6.7 (3.8) mg/day and mean (SD) MTX dose was 9.6 (3.0) mg/week. No exposure–response relationship was observed between the probability of first infection and steady-state abatacept exposure quartiles (Cavg, Cmin, and Cmax), or compared with placebo (Figure 1A–C). Kaplan–Meier assessment also showed no increase in risk of infection with concomitant use of MTX and glucocorticoids.

Conclusion

No association was found between initial infection and steady-state abatacept exposure (Cavg, Cmin, Cmax) or MTX and glucocorticoid use in patients with RA treated with SC abatacept.

References

[1]Jani M, et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2019;31:285–92.

[2]Ruperto N, et al. J Rheumatol 2021;48:1073–81.

[3]Emery P, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71(suppl 10):L11.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Writing and editorial assistance were provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Support was provided by Sandra Overfield as Protocol Manager, and Prema Sukumar and Renfang Hwang as Data Science Leads.

Disclosure of Interests

Paul Emery Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Roy Fleischmann Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, Arthrosi, Biosplice, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, TEVA, UCB, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi Tanabe, YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Taisho, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Takeda, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Gilead, Regeneron, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Speakers bureau: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Gustavo Citera Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Vidya Perera Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bindu Murthy Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Kelly Maxwell Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Cognigen Corporation, Julie Passarell Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Cognigen Corporation, William Hedrich: None declared, Daphne Williams Consultant of: Black Diamond Network, Joule, Syneos, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb.

POS0051 DIFFERENTIAL PHARMACODYNAMIC ALTERATIONS AFTER TREATMENT WITH ABATACEPT OR ADALIMUMAB IN MTX-INADEQUATE RESPONDER PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA: WHOLE BLOOD RNA-SEQ ANALYSIS OF THE EARLY AMPLE STUDY

Background

Despite advances in available novel pharmacologic agents for RA,1 the dearth of effective response predictors for specific therapies remains an unmet need. To inform clinical decision making, it is critical to define molecular signatures of these therapeutic agents by investigating their mechanisms of action (MoAs) and differential impacts on patients’ immune systems. Adalimumab and abatacept are biologic DMARDs with distinct MoAs used to treat RA. A better understanding of the differential pharmacodynamic (PD) changes of these 2 agents may provide guidance for the selection of treatment options.2 The Early AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background MTX) study compared treatment with abatacept or adalimumab in a population of patients with early RA to explore differential PD effects; abatacept treatment resulted in numerically higher efficacy responses vs adalimumab after 24 weeks of treatment.3

Objectives

To investigate PD changes in response to treatment with abatacept or adalimumab, and to identify and differentiate the impact of each drug on modulation of immune cells at the molecular level.

Methods

The phase 4 Early AMPLE trial (NCT02557100) was a head-to-head comparison of treatment response to either abatacept or adalimumab in patients with early RA with an inadequate response to MTX, high anti-citrullinated protein antibody titers, and RF positivity, with or without shared epitope. Whole blood RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) was conducted on samples collected from patients at different visits (day 1; weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 28, 32, 40, 48). Differential gene expression analyses were performed using Limma-voom pipeline in R, adjusting for batch effect and sex. Over-representation tests were used to identify enriched Gene Ontology pathways. xCell, a gene signatures–based method learned from thousands of pure cell types, was applied for immune cell type deconvolution and enrichment analysis.

Results

PD and association analyses were performed for 14,540 protein-coding genes in 664 RNA-Seq samples (79 patients with RA at 9 visits). Baseline association analysis showed that 248 differentially expressed genes and 6 cell cycle–related pathways were significantly associated with baseline SDAI score. After treatment, gene-enrichment analysis demonstrated that twice as many genes and pathways were significantly altered in the adalimumab- vs abatacept-treated arm. Abatacept treatment decreased immune cell cycle gene expression while adalimumab treatment increased expression of these genes. The increases due to adalimumab were reversed after switching to abatacept (open-label period). Using gene signatures to identify key immune cell subsets (Figure 1), adalimumab therapy increased expression of genes defining several key immune cell types involved in RA disease development, including dendritic cells, T cells, and B cells; these effects were also reversed after switching to abatacept.

Conclusion

The differential gene expression seen after treatment with abatacept or adalimumab was noted in genes identified as correlating with RA disease activity. These findings may inform on the mechanism for the relatively greater clinical improvements seen with abatacept vs adalimumab in the Early AMPLE study. Abatacept treatment may selectively modulate genes that are relevant to disease pathology/progression, with the potential to restore the immune homeostasis dysregulated in RA. Our findings warrant further studies to investigate the potential positive correlation between RA-relevant PD effects and better therapeutic outcomes.

References

[1]Mysler E, et al. Open Access Rheumatol 2021;13:139–52.

[2]van Vollenhoven R. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2019;15:180–6.

[3]Rigby W, et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2021;23:245.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Joanna Wright, DPhil, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests

Chun Wu Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yicong Li Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Parexel International, Neelanjana Ray Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Michael A Maldonado Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Peter Schafer Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, S. Louis Bridges Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, William Rigby Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Gilead, Regeneron, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Jane Buckner Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Hotspot Therapeutics, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Current: Bristol Myers Squibb, GentiBio; past: Amgen, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Jinqi Liu Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

OP0308-HPR MORE THAN HALF OF RA PATIENTS WITH A LIFETIME HISTORY OF MOOD DISORDERS WERE ANXIOUS AND DEPRESSED DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN EARLY COHORT (CATCH) STUDY

Background

A growing number of studies indicate the considerable mental health impacts of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic in the general population as chronic stress is a risk factor for the development of depression and anxiety. Mood disorders are more prevalent in RA and a history of anxiety or depressive disorders increases the risk of recurrence in the future.

Objectives

To compare trends in prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms, prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in RA patients with and without a lifetime history of mood disorders.

Methods

Data were from RA patients diagnosed and treated for RA in rheumatology clinics across Canada enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) Study. We estimated monthly trends in prevalence of clinically significant levels of anxiety and depression (PROMIS Depression and Anxiety 4a score 55+) from all visits between Mar 2019 and Jan 2022 and compared monthly trends in anxiety and depression in the year prior to (Mar 2019- Feb 2020) and during the pandemic (Mar 2020 to Jan 2022) stratified by lifetime history of mood disorders.

Results

4,148 visits were completed from Mar 2019 to Jan 2022 in 1,644 RA patients with a mean (SD) age of 60 (14) and disease duration of 6 (4) years. 73% were women, 84% white, 60% had completed some post-secondary education, and 77% were in CDAI REM/LDA at the visit closest to the start of pandemic. 253 (15%) reported a lifetime history of depression and 217 (13%) a lifetime history of anxiety; 8% reported prior treatment for either.

Patients with a history of mood disorders had higher levels of depression and anxiety prior-to and during the pandemic compared with patients without a history of mood disorders (Table 1). Proportions were highest during COVID waves in all and were substantially higher and more variable in people with a previous history of mood disorders as compared to those without a history (Figure 1). While depressive symptoms peaked early in the pandemic, anxiety increased with each wave, peaking in Wave 3 (May-Jun 2021).

Table 1.

Prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in RA patients with and without a history of mood disorders.

Period Prevalence (monthly range)DepressionAnxietyNo historyPrior HistoryNo HistoryPrior HistoryN observations35276213610538Prepandemic (3/19 - 2/20)21%(14%-30%)51%(29%-64%)27%(20%-35%)58%(31%-89%)Pandemic (3/20 - 1/22)22%(15%-29%)53%(33%-78%)28%(20%-43%)59%(33%-80%)Figure 1.

During the first 22 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of patients with depression and anxiety increased in all groups. More than half of those with a history of emotional distress had clinically significant levels of depression and anxiety; proportions were highest during COVID waves in all and were substantially higher in people with previous history as compared to those without a history (see Figure 1). Whereas depressive symptoms peaked early in the pandemic, anxiety increased with each wave, peaking in Wave 3 (May-Jun 2021).

Conclusion

Symptoms of anxiety and depression were common in Canadian adults with RA prior to and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whereas others have found that high levels of depression and anxiety occurred early in the pandemic but declined fairly rapidly in the general population1, emotional distress was not attenuated over time in this large cohort of RA patients. Individuals reporting lifetime history of mood disorders were more than twice as likely to report anxiety and depression, with depression peaking early in the pandemic and anxiety growing with each successive wave in the first year. The results demonstrate the importance of applying a lifetime perspective as previous episodes of anxiety and depression may be an important marker of increased vulnerability and recurrence in RA patients, particularly during the pandemic.

References

[1]Fancourt D et al. Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8:141-9.

Acknowledgements

CATCH is supported through unrestricted research grants from: Amgen and Pfizer Canada since 2007; AbbVie Corporation since 2011; Medexus since 2013; Sandoz Canada since 2019; Fresenius Kabi Canada since 2021 and; Organon Canada since 2021. Previous funding from Janssen Canada (2011-16); UCB Canada and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada (2011-18); Hoffman La Roche Limited (2011-21); Sanofi Genzyme (2016-17); Eli Lilly Canada (2016-20); Merck Canada (2017-21) and; Gilead Sciences Canada (2020-21)

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0286 CAN PATIENTS WITH CONTROLLED RA RECEIVING ANY CLASS OF TARGETED THERAPY WITH METHOTREXATE (MTX) SUSTAIN DISEASE CONTROL AFTER TAPERING MTX? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background

Patients with RA frequently struggle with intolerance of MTX and adherence to MTX remains highly variable. Guidelines conditionally recommend the tapering of MTX before tapering biologic (b)DMARDs, but acknowledge there is an absence of direct evidence. Prior reviews on this topic have focused on tapering of MTX from combination treatment with TNF-inhibitors(i) only1. There have been no updated reviews addressing MTX tapering from other targeted therapies such as IL6-i or JAK-i, nor has there been a systematic review addressing this question.

Objectives

To determine the feasibility of tapering MTX to targeted therapy (bDMARDs or JAKi) alone in patients whose RA is controlled (LDA or remission).

Methods

A systematic literature search combing MeSH terms and keywords was conducted in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library for studies reporting remission outcomes after tapering MTX from targeted therapies in RA. Non-English and animal studies were excluded. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Forest and funnel plots were created and heterogeneity was calculated.

Results

Our search identified 5762 citations. After removal of duplicates and screening title/abstract using the COVIDENCE platform, 504 full-text articles were reviewed. Of the 10 articles meeting our inclusion criteria of tapering MTX to monotherapy with a targeted therapy, 3 studies tapered to etanercept, 3 to tocilizumab, 1 to tofacitinib, 1 to certolizumab pegol, 1 to adalimumab and 1 to abatacept monotherapy. Nine studies were RCTs and one was a long-term extension study (LTE) (Table 1). Disease duration was longer in 7 studies (6-11 years) and early in 3 studies (1-9 months). The MTX tapering strategy was gradual in 2 and rapid in 8 studies. Follow-up ranged from 3 -18 months in RCTs, and up to 3 years in the LTE. Studies reporting outcomes up to 1 year after tapering had remission rates ranging 48-76%, but this dropped to 40% in one study reporting 18- month remission outcomes. Our meta-analysis conducted in 2000 RA participants from 10 studies showed that patients who tapered MTX to targeted therapy alone could maintain remission with an overall pooled OR of 0.81 (0.68, 0.97) (Figure 1). There was no heterogeneity among the studies in this group (I2=0.0%, p=0.788). Our funnel plot indicated high precision and potentially less publication bias. No significant difference in remission outcomes between early RA [OR 0.63 (0.33, 1.18)] and established RA [OR 0.84 (0.69, 1.03)] was observed.

Table 1.

Included Studies

Author/ YearnEarly RABaseline treatmentMTX Taper StrategyREM measureFollow-upCurtis 2020253noETA+MTXStopSDAI48 wksEmery 2019147yesABA+MTXStopSDAI48 wksCohen 2019533noTOFA+MTXStopDAS28-CRP48 wksEmery 2019411yesETA+MTXTaper 4 wksDAS2852 wksPablos 2019165noTCZ+MTXStopDAS2828 wksPope 201988noCZP+DMARDStopDAS2818 mosKremer 2018296noTCZ+MTXStopDAS2852 wksEdwards 2017272noTCZ+MTXTaper 24 wksDAS2848 wksKeystone 2016205noETA+MTXStopDAS2818 mosKeystone 2018140yesADA+MTXStopDAS28-CRP3 years

ETA etanercept, ABA abatacept, TOFA tofacitinib, TCZ tocilizumab, CZP certolizumab pegol, ADA adalimumab, REM remission, wk week, mo month, DAS28 Disease Activity Score 28, SDAI Simplified disease activity index.

Conclusion

Patients with controlled RA have a high probability of maintaining disease control after tapering their MTX to targeted therapy alone, up to 18 months. This review may inform patients with controlled disease on any of a range of targeted therapies and MTX, but who are struggling with MTX-related adverse effects and wish to taper it. Longer follow-up studies with attention to radiographic, functional and patient reported outcomes are needed. The possibility of disease worsening must be discussed with the patient in advance with careful follow-up and prompt re-treatment of disease worsening.

References

[1]Subesinghe S, Scott IC. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2015;8:751-60.

Disclosure of Interests

Charis Meng: None declared, Diviya Rajesh: None declared, Deanna Jannat-Khah Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Cytodyn, Walgreens, Omar Bruce: None declared, Bridget Jivanelli: None declared, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB., Grant/research support from: NIH (NIAID/NIAMS) grant 1UH2AR067691-01 GRANT11652401 and The Cedar Hill Foundation; institution received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Amgen;

POS0642 THE PROBABILITY OF SUSTAINING RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS REMISSION IN PATIENTS TAPERING TARGETED THERAPY USED AS MONOTHERAPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background

Up to 30% of RA patients receive monotherapy with biologic (b)DMARDs or JAK inhibitors (i), often due to intolerance of methotrexate (MTX). Monotherapy with IL-6i and JAK-i has been reported to be effective. The EULAR research agenda includes addressing the question of whether tapering of targeted therapy (bDMARDs and JAK-i) used as monotherapy (targeted monotherapy) is possible1.

Objectives

To assess if it is feasible to taper (stop or reduce) targeted monotherapy with controlled RA using existing clinical trial data.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature (2014-2021), cited in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Forest and funnel plots were created and heterogeneity calculated.

Results

Our search yielded 5762 citations. After de-duplication, screening of titles/abstracts and review of full text articles, we identified 5 studies comparing tapering of targeted monotherapy (TNF-i, tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA) and baricitinib) to continuing therapy or other tapering regimens (Table 1). In our meta-analysis of data from 800 patients we observed a trend for lower odds of remission when tapering of targeted monotherapy vs comparator treatment regimen [pooled OR 0.72 (0.35, 1.48)]. In one study comparing stopping monotherapy to continuing MTX, we saw the lowest OR 0.55 (0.20, 1.48). In studies comparing two tapering regimens the pooled OR was higher 2.17 (1.13, 4.16). There was no heterogeneity in the studies which compared tapering to continuing therapy (I2=0.0%, p=0.437) and moderate heterogeneity in the studies that tapered different treatments in both arms (I2=53.7%, p=0.115). Trials using a gradual tapering strategy had a numerically higher odds of remission [OR 2.15 (0.94, 4.92); 3.61(1.85, 7.04)] compared to a trial implementing abrupt withdrawal [OR 1.19 (0.53, 2.68)]. There was a trend for higher remission outcomes in studies of early RA [pooled OR 1.71 (0.72, 4.05)] compared to established RA [pooled OR 1.12 (0.29, 4.27)] (Figure 1). Funnel plots indicate a paucity of studies, and perhaps publication bias.

Table 1.

Included studies.

Author/yearnEarly RAMean Age RangeBaselineTapering strategyComparison arm interventionRemission OutcomeFollow uptreatmentvan Mulligen 2020189No56-57csDMARD + TNFiTaper csDMARD then TNFiTaper in reverse orderDAS44 < 1.624 mosKaneko102No54-58TCZ+MTXStop TCZContinue MTXDAS28 < 2.6104 wks2018vs TCZBijlsma299Yes54TCZ+MTXGradual taper MTX 1st then TCZGradual taper MTXDAS28 < 2.6+SJC≤4104 wks2016vs TCZvs MTXEmery176Yes45-49ABA+MTXStop ABAStop ABA Taper MTX offDAS28-CRP<2.618 mos2015vs ABAvs MTXTakeuchi69Yes48-53Bari 4mgReduce 2mgContinue 4mgCDAI < 2.848 wks2019

ABA abatacept, Bari baricitinib, CDAI Clinical disease activity index, csDMARDS conventional synthetic DMARDs, DAS28 Disease Activity Score 28, MTX methotrexate, SJC swollen joint count, TCZ tocilizumab, wks weeks, mos months.

Conclusion

There are no trials designed to compare tapering targeted monotherapy to continuing it, indicating a significant gap in knowledge in an area of increasing clinical relevance for our patients. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the significant effects of tapering targeted monotherapy in RA. Only one study out of 5 compared stopping targeted monotherapy to continuing therapy (MTX), and reported a low OR of remission. Three studies tapered therapy in both arms and one study performed a dose reduction. Our review suggests that stopping targeted monotherapy is unlikely to maintain disease control. More gradual tapering schemes, dose reduction and early treatment of disease may be associated with more successful tapering. More studies are needed to better inform our patients. Currently, we do not recommend stopping targeted monotherapy in RA.

References

[1]Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al.Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685-99.

Disclosure of Interests

Charis Meng: None declared, Diviya Rajesh: None declared, Deanna Jannat-Khah Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Cytodyn, Walgreens, Omar Bruce: None declared, Bridget Jivanelli: None declared, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: NIH (NIAID/NIAMS) grant 1UH2AR067691-01 GRANT11652401 and The Cedar Hill Foundation; institution received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Amgen

POS0417 LESS ACPA EPITOPE EXPANSION IS FOUND IN ACPA-POSITIVE IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITOR ARTHRITIS PATIENTS COMPARED TO ACPA-POSITIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have markedly improved the treatment of many advanced cancers; however, they can result in immune-related adverse events (irAE) including ICI arthritis (ICI-A). ICI-A often resembles rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ~9% of ICI-A patients are anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) positive. In RA, ACPA epitope expansion occurs over the years prior to onset of clinical disease. In this study we examined the degree of ACPA epitope expansion in seropositive ICI-A patients in order to determine whether it is similar to early RA, or more suggestive of the pre-clinical phase of disease1.

Objectives

To compare the number of ACPA epitopes targeted in seropositive ICI-A versus RA.

Methods

We used clinical data and serum from 12 ACPA+ ICI-A patients enrolled in a prospective registry and 39 ACPA+ RA patients enrolled in the CATCH-US early RA cohort. ACPA screening was done using a commercial ELISA (positive >20 units/mL). A custom, bead-based antigen array was used to identify antibody reactivities to 16 putative RA associated citrullinated proteins. Synovial fluid (SF) samples from 3 of the ICI-A patients were also tested using the bead-based microarray. Hierarchical clustering software was used to create heatmaps to identify ACPA levels. Z-scores for fluorescence intensity were also calculated separately for each peptide, and a fluorescence level above the mean (Z-score>0) was defined as a positive ACPA. The number of positive epitopes for each patient was determined and compared categorically between the ICI-A and RA patients using Fischer’s exact test.

Results

Characteristics of ICI-A and early RA patients are listed in Table 1. Compared to RA patients, ICI-A patients were older (mean 71 years vs. 48 years), more likely to have ever smoked (67% vs. 36%) and less likely to have positive rheumatoid factor (RF) (8% vs. 69%). Median symptom duration for ICI-A patients was 3.7 months compared to 6.7 months in RA patients. The median ACPA titer was lower in ICI-A patients than RA patients (42 units/mL vs. 250 units/mL). As demonstrated in Figure 1, lower signal intensities (level of ACPA) and a lower number of distinct ACPA epitopes were seen in the serum of ICI-A patients compared to RA patients. Of ICI-A patients, 67% were positive for 0-4 ACPA epitopes, 8% for 5-10 epitopes and 25% for >10 epitopes, as opposed to 23% of RA patients positive for 0-4 epitopes, 36% for 5-10 epitopes, and 41% for >10 epitopes (p=0.02). The one ICI-A patient who was also RF positive had 12 positive ACPA epitopes. There was no significant difference in the number of ACPA epitopes in ICI-A patients who were smokers vs. nonsmokers, RA-like vs. PMR-like, or who received ICI combination vs. ICI monotherapy. In the 3 ICI-A patients with synovial fluid samples, SF ACPA was not demonstrated.

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristics of ACPA+ ICI-A and RA Patients

ICI-A (N=12)Early RA (N=39)Age in years, mean (SD)71.0 (8.3)48.2 (14.6)Female Sex7 (58%)33 (85%)White/Caucasian9 (75%)27 (69%)Symptom Duration in months, median [IQR]3.7 [1.0,11.3]6.7 [4.0,9.7]RF Positive1 (8%)27 (69%)ACPA level (units/mL), median [IQR]42.2 [29.4,70.5]250 [107.5,251.0]Obese (BMI≥30)3 (25%)9 (23%)Current/Past Smoker8 (67%)14 (36%)Cancer Typeǂ Melanoma4 (33%) Renal Cell Carcinoma3 (25%)ICI Regimen PD-1/PD-L17 (58%) CTLA-4+PD-15 (42%)ICI-A Phenotype RA-like9 (75%) PMR-like3 (25%)

ǂOther cancer types in ICI-A patients included urothelial carcinoma (n=2), non-small cell lung cancer (n=2), and head and neck cancer (n=1).

Figure 1.

Heat Map of ACPA repertoire in RA Patients and ICI-A Patients.

Conclusion

ICI-A patients had lower ACPA titers and targeted fewer ACPA epitopes than early RA patients. It remains to be determined if ICI-A represents an accelerated model of RA pathogenesis with ICI triggering an early transition from pre-clinical to clinical disease. This would require sequential sampling and analysis.

References

[1]Sokolove J. et al. PLoS One. 2012;7(5)e35296

Disclosure of Interests

Diviya Rajesh: None declared, Nilasha Ghosh: None declared, Jessica Kirschmann: None declared, Karmela Kim Chan: None declared, Deanna Jannat-Khah Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Walgreens, and Cytodyn, Susan Goodman Consultant of: UCB Data Monitoring and Safety Board, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and The Cedar Hill Foundation, William Robinson: None declared, Anne Bass: None declared.

Frequency of symptomatic adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory online survey

Objective

To generate initial data on the frequency and impact of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drug therapy from the patients' perspective.

Methods

We conducted an exploratory online survey asking patients with RA to indicate whether they currently or had ever experienced the 80 different symptomatic AEs included in the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of The Common Terminology Criteria For Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™). Results were summarized to report their frequency and regression models were used to estimate their associations with RA medication use and overall bother.

Results

The 560 patients who completed the survey and reported taking at least one RA medication (DMARD, steroids, NSAIDs), had a mean disease duration of 8 years, and were on a wide range of DMARDs. The number of symptomatic AEs experienced in the past 7 days was none (6%), 1-10 (28%), 11-20 (28%), and >20 (38%). Overall, most participants reported that side effects bothered them somewhat (28%), quite a bit (24%) or very much (15%). In multivariable regression analyses, current prednisone and NSAID use were associated with the greatest number of current side effects (26 and 22 respectively). Many of the strongest associations between current symptomatic AEs and medication use aligned with known side effect profiles.

Conclusion

In this exploratory online survey, patients with RA reported frequent symptomatic AEs with their medications that are bothersome. Further work is needed to develop and validate a measure for use in patients with rheumatic disease.

HLA-DRB1 risk alleles for RA are associated with differential clinical responsiveness to abatacept and adalimumab: data from a head-to-head, randomized, single-blind study in autoantibody-positive early RA

Background

Certain risk alleles associated with autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been linked to poorer prognoses. In patients with autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept shows differential efficacy to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between clinical response to abatacept and to adalimumab and presence of risk alleles encoding human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) in RA.

Methods

In this head-to-head study, biologic-naïve adults with early (≤ 12 months), moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), autoantibody-positive for both anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2 and rheumatoid factor, were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with stable, weekly oral MTX. An open-label period to 48 weeks followed, during which adalimumab-treated patients were switched to abatacept. Patients were genotyped for HLA-DRB1 alleles and classified as SE-positive (≥ 1 SE allele) or SE-negative (no SE alleles). Efficacy was assessed at weeks 24 and 48.

Results

Forty patients each received abatacept (9 SE-negative, 30 SE-positive, one unknown) or adalimumab (9 SE-negative, 31 SE-positive). Mean age and disease duration were 46.0 years and 5.5 months, respectively. At week 24, a greater percentage of abatacept patients achieved 50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50) compared with adalimumab patients (73% vs 45%, respectively) and estimate of difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 28 (5, 48). In SE-positive patients, ACR50 estimate of difference (95% CI) was 32 (7, 55). During the open-label period, responses were sustained in the abatacept non-switch group and showed trends toward further improvement in the adalimumab-to-abatacept switch group at week 48, in both the overall and the SE-positive subpopulation. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

In MTX-IR patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, abatacept resulted in numerically higher efficacy responses versus adalimumab after 24 weeks, with more pronounced treatment differences in SE-positive patients. After 48 weeks, responses were sustained in patients who continued abatacept while those who switched to abatacept showed further clinical improvement, overall, and in SE-positive patients. This supports co-stimulation blockade as an effective treatment strategy for patients with early, autoantibody-positive RA, particularly among SE-positive patients.

Trial registration

NIH US National Library of Medicine, NCT02557100. Registered on September 23, 2015.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02607-7.

Heterogeneity in patient characteristics and differences in treatment across four Canadian rheumatoid arthritis cohorts

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across 4 Canadian cohorts.

METHODS

The four longitudinal cohorts included: The Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) (n=2878); Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) (n=3734); RHUMADATA® (Quebec, n=2890), and the Rheum4U Precision Health Registry (Calgary, n=709). Data were from cohort inception (range 1998-2016) to 2020. Clinical characteristics and drug treatments were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

10,211 patients with RA were included. The percentage of patients who entered the cohort with early RA ( ≤ 2 years of disease at enrolment) ranged from 29% (Rheum4U) to 100% (CATCH). Mean age (55 years), sex (74% female) and seropositivity (69%) were similar between cohorts. At the time of initial disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) use, median disease activity scores (DAS-28) varied, ranging from 2.99 (Rheum4U) to 5.19 (CATCH), but were more similar at the time of the first DMARD switch (range:3.57-5.03), first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD (bDAMRD, tsDMARD) use (range:4.01-4.67) and second bDAMRD or tsDMARD (range:3.71-4.39). The initial DMARD was most commonly methotrexate, either in monotherapy (32%, range:18%-40%) or dual therapy (34%, range:29%- 42%). The first DMARD switch was to another DMARD monotherapy in 20% (range:10%- 32%), dual therapy in 49% (range:39%-56%), and bDMARD or tsDMARD in 24% (range:15%- 28%). The first bDMARD was an anti-TNF in 79% (range:78%-85%).

CONCLUSION

Canadian RA cohorts demonstrate some heterogeneity in treatment which could reflect differences in inclusion criteria, calendar year, or regional differences. This project is a first step towards conducting harmonized analyses across Canadian RA cohorts.

Pregnancy and Rheumatic Disease: Experience at a Single Center in New York City During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

The present study was undertaken to evaluate the pregnancy experiences of women receiving care in the division of rheumatology at a major academic center in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A web-based COVID-19 survey was emailed to 26,045 patients who were followed in the division of rheumatology at a single center in New York City. Women ages 18-50 years were asked about their pregnancy. We compared the COVID-19 experience between pregnant and nonpregnant women and also explored the impact of the pandemic on prenatal care and perinatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 7,094 of the 26,045 respondents, 1,547 were women ages 18-50 years, with 61 (4%) reporting being pregnant during the pandemic. The prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 was similar in pregnant and nonpregnant women (8% versus 9%, respectively; P = 0.76). Among women with COVID-19, pregnant women had a shorter duration of symptoms (P < 0.01) and were more likely to experience loss of smell or taste (P = 0.02) than nonpregnant women. Approximately three-fourths of women had a systemic rheumatic disease, with no differences when stratified by pregnancy or COVID-19 status. In all, 67% of pregnant women noted changes to prenatal care during the pandemic, and 23% of postpartum women stated that the pandemic affected delivery.

CONCLUSION

Among women followed in the division of rheumatology at a major center in New York City, pregnancy was not associated with increased self-reported COVID-19. Pregnancy was associated with a shorter duration of COVID-19 symptoms and a higher prevalence of loss of smell or taste. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted prenatal care for the majority of pregnant patients.

AB0107 CHANGES IN EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX BIOMARKER C3M CORRELATE WITH ABATACEPT RESPONSE IN SEROPOSITIVE EARLY RA

Background:

Effective biomarkers are needed to guide RA treatment selection, and the importance of evaluating synovial tissue is increasingly recognised.1 Markers of extracellular matrix (ECM) turnover (e.g. C3M, a marker of interstitial tissue degradation)2 may have clinical utility as disease-relevant and surrogate biomarkers of synovial joint pathophysiology.

Objectives:

To evaluate baseline (BL) correlations of ECM biomarkers with disease activity and the predictive value of ECM biomarkers in patients (pts) with seropositive early RA in the exploratory head-to-head Early AMPLE study (NCT02557100), and to explore the impact of shared epitope (SE) status.

Methods:

Biologic-naive, MTX-inadequate responder adults with early (≤12 months’ duration), active, moderate-to-severe RA were enrolled if they were anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2+ and RF+. Pts were randomised 1:1 to receive SC abatacept (ABA) 125 mg weekly or SC adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every 2 weeks (wks) for 24 wks (single-blind period). Linear correlations between levels of ECM serum biomarkers (Nordic Biosciences) and disease activity (DAS28 [CRP], SDAI) at BL and change from BL (CfB) at Wk 24 were assessed in the overall population and by SE status (+/–); early (Wk 4) changes in biomarkers were also assessed.

Results:

For SE+ (n=61) and SE– (n=18) pts at BL, mean (SD) DAS28 (CRP) was 5.3 (1.2) and 5.0 (1.0), and SDAI was 35.9 (16.2) and 34.0 (13.8), respectively. At BL in the overall population, significant medium correlations between C1M, C3M and C4M and disease activity were seen (Table 1). Correlations were generally higher in SE+ vs SE– pts, with C1M highly correlated with DAS28 (CRP) in SE+; correlations between C1M, C3M and C4M and disease activity were all significant in SE+ but not SE– pts. At Wk 24, overall CfB in C3M showed higher correlation with CfB in disease activity in pts receiving ABA (n=36; DAS28 [CRP]: 0.66 [p<0.0001]; SDAI: 0.53 [p=0.0009]) vs ADA (n=32; DAS28 [CRP]: 0.33 [p=0.0644]; SDAI: 0.39 [p=0.0267]); this was more pronounced in SE+ pts (ABA, n=27; DAS28 [CRP]: 0.70 [p=0.0001]; SDAI: 0.63 [p=0.0005] vs ADA, n=25; DAS28 [CRP]: 0.33 [p=0.1120]; SDAI: 0.41 [p=0.0445]). Changes at Wk 4 in C3M showed higher correlation with response to ABA vs ADA (Figure 1). Correlations between CfB (at Wks 4 and 24) in other biomarkers and response were generally similar between treatment groups.

Table 1.

BL correlation of ECM biomarkers with BL disease activity

Overall(N=77)SE+(n=60)SE–(n=17)DAS28 (CRP)SDAIDAS28 (CRP)SDAIDAS28 (CRP)SDAICRPM0.260.200.200.120.410.410.02070.07770.13240.35830.09810.1001Osteocalcin0.240.230.230.200.280.330.03800.04160.07630.12930.28180.1890CTX-10.230.200.210.170.260.280.04400.08440.11040.19320.30890.2703C1M0.54a0.34a0.60b0.38b0.340.260.00000.00280.00000.00290.18220.3216C2M−0.050.00−0.060.01−0.020.010.67740.97590.65650.95670.94410.9813C3M0.440.300.470.300.330.310.00010.00800.00010.01990.19430.2301C4M0.390.320.470.360.100.110.00040.00490.00010.00470.70120.6767

Data are Spearman correlation coefficient, p value. Linear correlations by shading: light grey, low (0–<0.3); medium grey, medium (0.3–<0.6); dark grey, high (0.6–1). Pts with missing SE allele data not included.

an=75.

bn=58.

C1M, C2M, C3M, C4M=MMP-mediated degradation products of collagen type I, II, III and IV, respectively; CRPM=neo-epitope of MMP-mediated degradation of CRP; CTX-1=neo-epitope of cathepsin-mediated degradation of type I collagen; MMP=matrix metalloproteinase; SE−=0 SE alleles; SE+=≥1 SE allele.

Conclusion:

Significant BL correlation between C1M, C3M and C4M and disease activity was seen and was generally numerically higher in SE+ vs SE– pts. Early (Wk 4) change in C3M and later (Wk 24) treatment response were more highly correlated in pts receiving abatacept vs adalimumab. The predictive value of ECM biomarkers for treatment response warrants study in a larger population.

References:

[1]Ouboussad L, et al. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019;6:45.

[2]Gudmann NS, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2018;36:462–470.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Joanna Wright at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

S. Louis Bridges Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Jane Buckner Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Michael A Maldonado Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and UCB (given to institution); grants from the NIH, PCORI, and CIHR (given to institutions with whom she is affiliated); and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and UCB outside the submitted work., Grant/research support from: Grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and UCB (given to institution); grants from the NIH, PCORI, and CIHR (given to institutions with whom she is affiliated); and personal fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and UCB outside the submitted work., Neelanjana Ray Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sumanta Mukherjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Nobuhisa Ohtsuka Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

OP0262-HPR THE NEURO-QOL UPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTION SCALE: NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO MORE RELIABLY AND PRECISELY MEASURE SELF-REPORTED HAND FUNCTION AND SELF-CARE ACTIVITIES IN PEOPLE WITH RA

Background:

RA is an inflammatory disease that results in pain and loss of function, especially in the hands and wrists. Brief self-assessment tools that can reliably and precisely quantify hand/wrist function are needed to assess inflammatory activity when a physical exam is not feasible and to capture day-to-day experience of living with RA. Neuro-QoL is part of the PROMIS family of self-report measures created using a patient-centred approach and IRT methodology. The Neuro-Qol Upper Extremity Function (UEF) scale measures ability across fine motor and ADLs involving digital, manual and reach-related function and self-care. Little is known about its performance in RA.

Objectives:

To evaluate the validity and responsiveness of the 8-item Neuro-QoL UEF in RA. We hypothesized scores would be strongly (r>.70) associated with MHAQ, MD-HAQ, and PROMIS PF, moderately (r=.4 to .7) to symptoms, disease activity, and QoL indicators, and be responsive to change in disease activity and PF.

Methods:

Data were from the 0 and 6-month visits of adults with early RA (sx <1 yr) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective real-world study at 16 sites across Canada. Participants completed the Neuro-QoL UEF, MHAQ, MDHAQ, PROMIS-29, and PT Global at each visit. Rheumatologists recorded joint counts and MD Global. To evaluate content validity, we examined descriptive statistics across CDAI disease activity levels, and Pearson correlations between the Neuro-QOL UEF, legacy measures, CRP & ESR. Responsiveness was assessed by correlating change scores from visits 0-6 between Neuro-QoL UEF, disease activity and legacy PF scores.

Results:

The 262 participants were mostly white (83%) women (71%) with a mean (SD) age of 55 (13). Summary statistics at 6-months are shown in Table 1. Neuro-QOL UEF was moderately-strongly correlated with MHAQ, MDHAQ, PROMIS-PF (|r|=.63-.75) and moderately correlated with pain and stiffness, (|r|=.59, -.64), and CDAI, SDAI, PT&MD Global, TJ & SJ (|r|=.39-.58). Neuro-QOL UEF was moderately correlated with PROMIS QoL domains Pain, Fatigue, Anxiety, Depression, Sleep & Participation (|r|=.39-.60).

Table 1.

Summary statistics of physical function and RA disease activity indices at 6 months.

MeanSDMdn25%75%(Min, Max)Physical FunctionNeuro-Qol UEF46.59.753.837.553.8(21.8, 53.8)MHAQ (0-3)0.290.430.130.000.38(0.00, 2.25)MD-HAQ (0-10)1.391.640.700.002.00(0.00, 8.00)PROMIS-PF46.48.546.239.556.0(23.3, 56.0)RA Disease ActivityCDAI9.39.96.03.013.0(0.0, 56.0)SDAI10.710.96.83.115.2(0.0, 57.0)Patient Global3.02.5315(0, 10)MD Global1.82.2103(0, 9)Swollen Joints (28)2.13.7002(0, 20)Tender Joints (28)2.43.9103(0, 24)

Neuro-QOL scores decreased in a dose-response manner across worsening CDAI DA states reflecting increasing impairment (Table 2). Persons with HDA reported the highest disability, scoring nearly 0.5 SD lower on the Neuro-QoL UEF than PROMIS PF. Change from baseline to 6 months in Neuro-QoL UEF was moderately correlated with changes in PROMIS PF, MHAQ, PT Global, and CDAI (|r|=.44-.65). The mean change and range from 0-6 months in Neuro-QoL was significantly larger than in PROMIS (8.9 [95% CI 7.5, 10.4] vs. 5.4 [95% CI 4.4, 6.4])(see Figure).

Table 2.

Mean scores (95% CI) at 6 months by CDAI level.

REMLDAMDAHADNeuroQol UEF52.8 (51.8, 53.7)48.1 (46.6, 49.7)42.0 (39.4, 44.6)33.8 (30.5, 37.1)MHAQ (0-3)0.05 (0.02, 0.09)0.19 (0.14, 0.24)0.45 (0.34, 0.57)0.90 (0.63, 1.17)MD-HAQ (0-10)0.31 (0.17, 0.46)1.11 (0.90, 1.32)2.15 (1.71, 2.59)3.56 (2.56, 4.56)PROMIS-PF52.8 (51.4, 54.2)46.8 (45.3, 48.2)42.3 (40.4, 44.2)38.0 (34.4, 41.6)

Conclusion:

Clinicians, researchers, and patients benefit from practical self-report tools that reliably and precisely monitor hand function in RA. Results offer initial evidence of validity and responsiveness and support use of Neuro-QoL UEF to self-assess inflammatory activity in the hands and day-to-day experiences of living with RA.

Acknowledgements:

The CATCH study was designed and implemented by the investigators and financially supported through unrestricted research grants from: Amgen and Pfizer Canada - Founding sponsors since January 2007; AbbVie Corporation and Hoffmann-LaRoche since 2011; Medexus Inc. since 2013;, Merck Canada since 2017, Sandoz Canada, Biopharmaceuticals since 2019,Gilead Sciences Canada since 2020 and Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd. since 2021. Previously funded by Janssen Biotech from 2011-2016, UCB Canada and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada from 2011-2018, Sanofi Genzyme from 2016-2017, and Eli Lilly Canada from 2016-2020.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS1459-HPR IDENTIFYING MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN THE RA FLARE QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

The RA-FQ is a patient-reported measure of current disease activity in RA that can be used to identify disease flares. The RA-FQ queries pain, physical function, fatigue, stiffness, and participation and yields a score from 0-50. We previously reported on reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Objectives:

To identify changes in RA-FQ that represent minimal and meaningful improvement or worsening from the perspective of people with RA, treating rheumatologists, and in relation to disease activity indices. We hypothesized that

Methods:

Data were from adults with early RA (sx <1 year) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort, a prospective study of real-world patients treated across Canada. Participants completed the RA-FQ, Patient Global, and RA transition item since last visit (a little vs. a lot better or worse or same) between consecutive 3- and 6-month visits. Rheumatologists recorded joint counts, MD Global, and change in RA. We compared mean change across improvement and worsening using patient anchors and disease activity indicators.

Results:

The 808 adults were mostly white (84%) women (71%) with a mean (SD) age of 55 (15) and moderate-high CDAI level (85%) at enrollment. Most (79%) reported their RA had changed; 59% were better and 20% worse. Patients who were a lot worse had a mean increase of 8.9 points whereas those who rated themselves as a lot better had a -6.0 decrease on the RA-FQ (Figure 1). Minimal worsening and improvement were associated with 4.7 and -1.8 change in RA-FQ scores, respectively, while patients who rated their RA unchanged had stable RA-FQ scores (Table 1).

Similar changes were evident in CDAI, SDAI, and DAS indices (Table 1). Larger differences were observed with patient vs. physician global scores and tender vs. swollen joints. Across measures, the change associated with worsening was greater than for improvement. Results supported all prespecified hypotheses ab.

Table 1.

Spearman’s correlation coefficients of PsAQoL with the other parameters for construct validity

DomainA Lot Better(N=346; 43%)A Little Better(N=132; 16%)The Same(N=174; 21%)A Little Worse(N=94; 12%)A Lot Worse(N=62; 8%)Δ95% CISDΔ95% CISDΔ95% CISDΔ95% CISDΔ95% CISDRA-FQ Total (0-50)-6.0(-7.1, -4.9)10.3-1.8(-3.2, -0.3)8.4-0.1(-1.3, 1.1)8.14.7(2.9, 6.6)9.18.9(5.1, 12.7)15.0 Pain-1.2(-1.4, -0.9)2.4-0.4(-0.8, 0.0)2.30.0(-0.2, 0.3)1.81.3(0.8, 1.7)2.22.0(1.2, 2.9)3.3 Physical Function-1.3(-1.6, -1.1)2.4-0.3(-0.6, 0.1)2.10.0(-0.3, 0.3)2.10.9(0.4, 1.4)2.41.8(0.8, 2.7)3.7 Fatigue-1.1(-1.4, -0.8)2.6-0.4(-0.7, 0.0)1.90.0(-0.3, 0.3)2.10.7(0.3, 1.1)2.11.3(0.5, 2.1)3.2 Stiffness-1.1(-1.4, -0.9)2.4-0.4(-0.7, 0.0)2.0-0.1(-0.4, 0.2)2.01.1(0.6, 1.5)2.21.8(1.0, 2.7)3.3 Participation-1.2(-1.5, -1.0)2.5-0.1(-0.5, 0.3)2.1-0.1(-0.4, 0.2)2.20.8(0.4, 1.3)2.22.0(1.1, 2.8)3.4Disease ActivityCDAI*-5.3(-6.3, -4.3)9.1-3.3(-5.4, -1.3)11.5-0.8(-2.0, 0.5)8.11.7(-0.1, 3.5)8.86.8(3.7, 9.8)12.0SDAI-5.6(-6.8, -4.4)9.2-3.5(-6.1, -0.9)12.2-1.9(-3.6, -0.2)8.91.5(-0.7, 3.7)9.24.7(1.0, 8.4)12.2DAS28-CRP-0.7(-0.8, -0.6)1.01-0.5(-0.7, -0.2)1.2-0.2(-0.4, 0.0)1.00.3(0.1, 0.5)1.00.5(0.2, 0.9)1.2Patient Global (0-10)-1.3(-1.5, -1.0)2.7-0.5(-0.9, -0.1)2.1-0.1(-0.4, 0.2)2.11.3(0.8, 1.8)2.42.9(2.1, 3.6)3.1MD Global (0-10)-1.2(-1.4, -1.0)1.9-0.7(-1.1, -0.3)-0.1-0.1(-0.4, 0.2)1.90.1(-0.3, 0.5)2.80.7(0.0, 1.5)2.8Swollen Joints (28)-1.4(-1.7, 1.0)3.2-1.0(-1.8, -0.2)4.6-0.4(-0.9, 0.0)3.00.0(-0.7, 0.7)3.41.3(0.2, 2.5)4.6Tender Joints (28)-1.5(-1.9, -1.1)3.9-1.3(-2.2, -0.3)5.50.0(-0.7, 0.6)4.30.3(-0.7, 1.2)4.52.2(0.8, 3.5)5.4

Conclusion:

In this large cohort of adults with ERA, the RA-FQ was responsive to change and generally distinguish between minimal and meaningful improvement and worsening. These data add to a growing evidence demonstrating robust psychometric properties of the RA-FQ and offer initial guidance about the amount of change associated with improvement or worsening, supporting its use in RA care, research and decision-making.

Acknowledgements:

The CATCH study was designed and implemented by the investigators and financially supported through unrestricted research grants from: Amgen and Pfizer Canada - Founding sponsors since January 2007; AbbVie Corporation and Hoffmann-LaRoche since 2011; Medexus Inc. since 2013;, Merck Canada since 2017, Sandoz Canada, Biopharmaceuticals since 2019,Gilead Sciences Canada since 2020 and Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd. since 2021. Previously funded by Janssen Biotech from 2011-2016, UCB Canada and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada from 2011-2018, Sanofi Genzyme from 2016-2017, and Eli Lilly Canada from 2016-2020.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

OP0118 EFFECT OF WITHDRAWING ETANERCEPT OR METHOTREXATE ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS IN REMISSION ON COMBINATION THERAPY: RESULTS FROM THE SEAM-RA TRIAL

Background:

Limited studies have assessed the effect of withdrawal of either methotrexate (MTX) or etanercept (ETN) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objectives:

To evaluate the baseline and change in PROs following withdrawal of MTX or ETN in RA patients with sustained remission receiving combination ETN+MTX.

Methods:

Adult patients with RA on ETN+MTX and in remission (SDAI ≤3.3) for ≥12 months (including a 24-week, open-label, run-in period) were randomized to a 48-week double-blind period to receive ETN 50 mg weekly (N=101), oral MTX 10-25 mg weekly (N=101) or continue ETN+MTX (N=51). The primary endpoint was maintenance of SDAI remission without disease worsening (DW) at week 48 between ETN and MTX groups. Patients who experienced SDAI >11 at any time after randomization, or SDAI >3.3 and ≤11 during 2 consecutive or on 3 non-consecutive visits were considered to have DW and resumed ETN+MTX. PROs assessed were patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA, 0-100 mm), patient joint pain (PtJP, 0-100 mm), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) component and domain scores. A 2-sample t-test was used to compare the treatment differences between groups. A subgroup analysis for patients with DW was also performed (DW analysis set) and compared PROs between ETN vs MTX arms (ETN+MTX not shown given the small sample size).

Results:

Of the 253 patients randomized, 121 (47.8%) experienced DW and were included in the DW analysis set. Baseline demographics were generally balanced between the 3 treatment groups. Most patients were women (76.3%), White (87.0%), and with a mean age of 55.6 years. The mean (SD) MTX dose was 16.3 (4.69) mg and the mean (SD) duration of RA was 10.3 (7.8) years. At week 48, a significantly greater proportion of patients on ETN vs MTX monotherapy maintained SDAI remission (49.5% vs 28.7%; P=0.004) after therapy withdrawal. In the overall population, PtGA and PtJP scores were very low at baseline (PtGA–MTX: 4.4, ETN: 4.5, ETN+MTX: 3.5; PtJP–MTX: 4.9, ETN: 5.5, ETN+MTX: 3.5) and showed some worsening over the study period in all treatment groups, with a mean change at week 48 ranging from 5.0 to 10.0 units for PtGA and 3.7 to 8.1 units for PtJP. Patients on ETN had less worsening, with a nominally significant treatment difference observed between ETN and MTX monotherapy groups for PtGA at almost all timepoints, and for PtJP at weeks 12 and 36 (Figure). Mean HAQ-DI (MTX: 0.32; ETN: 0.26; ETN+MTX: 0.28) and SF-36 scores (physical component [PCS]–MTX: 52.1, ETN: 52.7, ETN+MTX: 52.3; mental component [MCS]–MTX: 55.5, ETN: 55.8, ETN+MTX: 57.1) at baseline show that patients had low disability and excellent health-related quality of life compared with normative values for the general non-RA population. HAQ-DI scores were well maintained at weeks 24 and 48 (change from baseline at week 48–MTX: 0.14; ETN: 0.15; ETN+MTX: 0.21). The SF-36 PCS, MCS, and domain scores decreased minimally from baseline with treatment differences that were not nominally significant between groups. Among patients with DW during the study, those on ETN showed less PtGA and PtJP worsening from baseline than those on MTX at weeks 12, 36, and 48 (Figure). Other PROs (HAQ-DI [change from baseline at week 24–ETN: 0.34; MTX: 0.21; at week 48–ETN: 0.15; MTX: 0.15], SF-36 PCS, MCS, and domain scores) showed a similar degree of worsening in both the MTX and ETN arms.

Conclusion:

In patients with sustained SDAI remission on ETN+MTX, mental and physical health as measured by SF-36 was comparable with that of the non-RA population. Withdrawal of ETN (MTX monotherapy) resulted in a greater worsening of PtGA and PtJP than withdrawal of MTX (ETN monotherapy), and patients on ETN monotherapy restored these scores close to baseline towards the end of the treatment period. These findings demonstrate that ETN monotherapy has a greater effect on maintaining overall patient assessment of disease and joint pain compared with MTX monotherapy.

Disclosure of Interests:

Jeffrey Curtis Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Scipher, Amgen, Corrona, Janssen, Myriad, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Scipher, Amgen, Corrona, Janssen, Myriad, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Scipher, Amgen, Corrona, Janssen, Myriad, and Pfizer, Elaine Karis Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Vivian Bykerk Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme/Regeneron, Scipher Medicine, and UCB., Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme/Regeneron, Scipher Medicine, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Amgen and Novartis, Greg Kricorian Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Priscilla Yen Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Paul Emery Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, and UCB., Paul Haraoui Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, and Pfizer, David Collier Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Brad Stolshek Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc.

POS0594 MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENT AND WORSENING IN PATIENTS WHO DO NOT ACHIEVE LDA AND SWITCH THERAPY TO A NEW BIOLOGIC OR TARGETED THERAPY: RESULTS FROM THE CORRONA REGISTRY

Background:

Guidelines recommend adjusting therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who fail to reach and sustain low disease activity (LDA) or remission (disease control). Many factors can affect the decision to change therapy, including the potential for improvement as well as the fear of potential worsening or loss of improvement already achieved. Although data exist on response to treatment in patients who switch therapy, data addressing the likelihood of worsening are limited.

Objectives:

The aim of this analysis was to describe the demographic, clinical characteristics, and change in clinical outcomes in patients on biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) who had some improvement in clinical disease activity index (CDAI) but did not achieve LDA after ~ 6-12 months of treatment and then switched to a different b/tsDMARD.

Methods:

This study included adult inadequately responding RA patients from the CORRONA registry who: (1) started a biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) between January 2010 to November 2020 (V1), (2) had any CDAI improvement (i.e., decrease ≥1 unit) but were not in LDA or remission at a subsequent visit (baseline [BL]) occurring 3 to 15 months after V1; (3) had a third visit (follow-up [F/U]) 6 (±3) months after BL with a valid CDAI measure; (4) switched therapy at the BL or between BL and F/U, with the switch occurring at least 3 months prior to the F/U. CDAI >10 and ≤22 was defined as moderate disease activity (MDA) and CDAI >22 was defined as high disease activity (HDA). Two thresholds of change in CDAI (≥6 and ≥12 units) were used to define meaningful improvement and meaningful worsening after the switch. If there was no meaningful improvement or meaningful worsening, this was considered as no meaningful change (-5 to +5 for 6 units change and -11 to +11 for 12 units change). These thresholds for meaningful change were set for all switchers regardless of their pre-switch CDAI value. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and clinical characteristics for the switchers at BL, and the change of clinical outcomes was evaluated from BL to F/U.

Results:

Of the 1,224 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 93 (7.6%) switched therapy and 1,131 (92.4%) did not switch therampy after not achieving an adequate response on the initial b/tsDMARD. At BL, 42.5% and 70.0% of patients had no meaningful improvement to their prior therapy based on ≥6 and ≥12-unit change, respectively; mean (SD) age was 53.1 (14.0) years; duration of RA 10.7 (10.4) years; CDAI 22.2 (10.8); 81.7% were female; 64.5% had MDA, 35.5% had HDA; 21.5 % reported being disabled, 24.7% were current smokers, and 50% were obese. In terms of prior biologic use 57.0%, 22.6%, and 20.4% had been on 1, 2, and 3+, respectively. From BL to F/U, meaningful worsening occurred in 30.1% and 12.9% using a threshold of 6 and 12, respectively, with the remaining patients experiencing meaningful improvement or no meaningful change (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Meaningful Worsening, Meaningful Improvement, and No Meaningful Change Based on CDAI Change Thresholds of ≥6 and ≥12 From BL to F/U (N=93)

Conclusion:

In our analysis, a large proportion of patients who initiated a biologic/JAKi and experienced some improvement but failed to attain LDA or remission, did not switch therapy within approximately a year. This analysis consisted of many patients who did not have a meaningful response to their prior biologic/JAKi, patients who had received multiple prior biologics, and a large portion of patients with poor prognostic factors. Despite this, the proportion of patients with meaningful worsening was low compared with most patients who had either meaningful improvement or no meaningful change. Additional research is warranted to understand the reasons for not switching and whether the likelihood of a meaningful change correlates with prior response, poor prognosis, or other factors.

Acknowledgements:

Amy Praestgaard (Sanofi) contributed to the statistical analysis for this abstract. Medical writing support for this abstract was provided by Krishna Kammari (Sanofi).

Disclosure of Interests:

Jeffrey Curtis Grant/research support from: and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, CORRONA, Eli Lily, Janssen, Myriad, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Radius, UCB, outside the submitted work, Stefano Fiore Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi. In addition, he has a patent EP 19306553.9; USPTO #s 62/799,698; 62/851,474; 62/935,395 issued, Kerri Ford Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Judson Janak: None declared, Hong Chang: None declared, Dimitrios A Pappas Employee of: CORRONA LLC. He has previously acted as a consultant for Sanofi, Abbvie, Gtech Roche Hellas, and Novartis. He has an equity interest in CORRONA LLC. and is on the Board of directors of the CORRONA research foundation, Taylor Blachley: None declared, Kelechi Emeanuru: None declared, Vivian Bykerk Grant/research support from: reports grants from Amgen, BMS, UCB, and Novartis were given to institution, that grants from the NIH, PCORI, and CIHR were given to institutions which whom she is affiliated, and that she has received personal fees from Amgen, Gilead, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Roche, UCB and Regeneron, outside the submitted work.

POS0267-HPR IDENTIFYING MEANINGFUL AND DETECTABLE CHANGE FROM THE PATIENT PERSPECTIVE ACROSS COMMON FATIGUE MEASURES IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Different tools are commonly used to assess fatigue in RA including single items (visual analogue (VAS), numeric rating (NRS), and Likert scales), SF-36 Vitality, and PROMIS. Evidence is needed to identify scores that reflect meaningful change to patients to interpret fatigue results in trials and for clinical care.

Objectives:

To use symptom-specific and RA change anchors to estimate meaningful and detectable change scores from the patient perspective across several fatigue measures.

Methods:

Stable RA patients (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) were recruited from 3 academic clinical practices across the Southern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern United States. Scales were administered at 2 consecutive visits to capture PROs including fatigue. We also asked a fatigue-specific change question (How would you rate your fatigue since the last visit?). Response options were a lot better, a little better, the same, a little worse, and a lot worse. An RA disease activity change question followed a similar format. We compared mean change between visits across fatigue and RA change categories for the Fatigue NRS, Fatigue 5-point Likert (none to very severe), SF36 Vitality, and PROMIS Fatigue 4a, 7a, and 8a.

Results:

The sample included 282 patients with stable RA who completed questionnaires 4.6 (SD 2.4) months apart. Patients were mostly white (78%) women (82%) with RA duration of 13 (11) years. At V1, most were in CDAI LDA (57%) or MDA (30%) with 5% in REM and 8% in HDA states. Using the Fatigue change anchor, 6% were a lot better, with mean change ranging from |1-11|points across scales (Table 1); among 13% a little better, smaller changes |0.4 to 5|were reported. Across all measures score changes for meaningful and minimal improvement were numerically larger for improvement than worsening.

Fatigue Change CategoriesLot Better 6%Little Better 13%Same 49%Little Worse 22%Lot Worse 10%NMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDFatigue 11 point NRS19-2.22.437-0.72.3137-0.51.9610.41.9261.32.1Fatigue 5-point Likert19-0.81.236-0.41.21370.00.9600.20.9270.61.2SF36 Vitality (0-100)1911.216.1364.913.71370.310.659-3.215.326-11.416.6PROMIS Fatigue 7a19-5.98.537-2.67.51380.06.462-0.36.5274.38.3PROMIS Fatigue 8a19-6.110.237-2.77.1138-0.37.1621.36.9275.611.0PROMIS Fatigue 4a19-6.89.937-3.38.2138-0.47.4601.27.2275.211.5

Using the RA change categories, more people rated their RA as at least a little better compared with fatigue (28% vs. 19%, respectively) at the second visit (Table 2). Similar patterns were evident across RA change categories, though score changes associated with improvement and worsening were about half those observed using fatigue change anchors.

RA Disease Activity Change CategoriesLot Better13%Little Better15%Same42%Little Worse21%Lot Worse9%NMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDNMeanSDFatigue 11 point NRS36-0.82.343-0.62.7117-0.21.958-0.21.9260.72.2Fatigue 5-point Likert35-0.31.242-0.31.11180.11.0580.10.8260.31.3SF36 Vitality (0-100)356.417.4433.813.0117-0.612.957-3.711.325-6.017.0PROMIS Fatigue 7a37-1.69.543-1.57.4118-0.37.0590.55.6261.37.5PROMIS Fatigue 8a37-2.19.543-1.79.01180.17.6590.74.8263.011.4PROMIS Fatigue 4a36-2.79.643-2.39.01180.18.1590.45.6252.612.0

Conclusion:

The score change associated with meaningful improvement and worsening between visits on commonly used fatigue scales was much larger with fatigue vs. RA change categories. More people rated their RA improved as compared with fatigue at the 2nd visit. Symptom-specific anchors are likely to offer more relevant change scores associated with meaningful improvement and worsening than RA change anchors. These estimates offer new information about meaningful and detectable improvement and worsening on common measures for trialists, researchers, and clinicians monitoring fatigue in people with RA.

Acknowledgements:

The primary research data included within this report were acquired through funding in part from a PCORI Methods Award (SC14-1402-10818). This work was also supported by the NIH through the Rheumatic Diseases Resource-based Core Center (P30-AR053503 Core D, and P30-AR070254, Core B), the Camille Julia Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Discovery Fund.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0531 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH BASELINE HYPERTENSION IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM A REAL-WORLD LARGE INCIDENT COHORT

Background:

It is not well understood why hypertension (HTN) is so common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Reported prevalence of HTN in RA patients ranges from 4-73%.(1)

Objectives:

This study explored the prevalence of HTN at time of RA diagnosis and which demographic, behavioural and clinical factors were associated with HTN.

Methods:

Data from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), a prospective inception cohort of patients with RA <1 year duration, were used to analyze baseline demographic, behavioural and clinical characteristics associated with HTN, which was reported by physicians. Univariate logistic regression models were created to explore associations with baseline HTN. A multivariate logistic regression model was built based on goodness of fit indicated by likelihood ratio tests. Variables included in the model were age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), education, smoking, alcohol servings, seropositivity, disease activity and comorbidities.

Results:

In total, 2052 subjects were included with mean (±SD) age of 55 (±14) years and symptom duration 5.60(5.47, 5.73) months, 71% of subjects were female and 85% were Caucasian. HTN was reported in 26% of subjects at baseline. Hypertensive subjects were older and more likely to be male. Other factors significantly associated with HTN at baseline were lower education, ever smoking, high BMI, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, worse RA disease activity, longer duration of RA symptoms, being seropositive, as well as the use of NSAIDs and/or corticosteroids (Table 1). In multivariable analysis HTN was associated with older age, overweight and obese BMI, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia. Expression of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies was inversely associated with HTN (Table 1). Other RA disease factors and treatments were not significantly associated with HTN on multivariable analysis.

Table 1.

Results of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses exploring the association between baseline characteristics and HTN in early RA.

Univariate Logistic RegressionMultivariable Logistic RegressionVariableCrude OR (95% CI)Adjusted OR (95% CI)Socio-Demographic20-39 years old0.15 (0.07, 0.26)0.14(0.05, 0.34)40-59 years oldReference60-79 years old2.81 (2.26, 3.50)2.26(1.65, 3.11)80-99 years old5.87 (3.36,10.25)3.80(1.53, 9.41)Female0.55 (0.45, 0.68)1.10(0.78, 1.54)Lifestyle/BehaviouralNormal weight (18.5- 24.9kg/m2)ReferenceOverweight (25-29.9 kg/m2)2.33(1.74, 3.11)1.63(1.10, 2.43)Obese (30+ kg/m2)3.19(2.38, 4.27)2.84(1.91, 4.23Ever-smoking1.41(1.15, 1.73)1.02(0.75, 1.40)Post-secondary education0.58(0.47, 0.71)0.88(0.65, 1.20)Clinical CharacteristicsSymptom duration0.99(0.99, 0.99)1.00(1.00, 1.00)DAS-281.09(1.09, 1.17)1.02(0.92, 1.13)ACPA+0.68(0.56, 0.85)0.64(0.44, 0.92)Corticosteroid use pre-baseline1.37(1.04, 1.81)OmittedNSAID use at baseline0.68(0.55, 0.84)OmittedDiabetes5.62(4.09, 7.73)3.20(1.99, 5.15)Hyperlipidemia4.75(3.74, 6.03)2.80(1.94, 4.02),CVD15.59(3.35, 72.64)Omitted

DAS-28; Disease activity score 28, ACPA; Anti-citrullinated protein antibody, CVD; Cardiovascular disease. Pre-baseline is 29 to 365 days before entering the cohort. Baseline is within 28 days before entering the cohort. Omitted variables either failed likelihood ratio test or were colinear. Additional variables tested but found insignificant: race, alcohol servings, depression, RF+, and use of DMARDs.

Conclusion:

Approximately 1 in 4 diagnosed with RA had HTN reported by their rheumatologists, which is similar to that of the general population. This suggests that increased risk of HTN in RA patients may develop as RA disease or treatment time progresses. Factors that may be predictive of this excess risk will be explored in further analysis.

References:

[1]Panoulas VF, Metsios GS, Pace AV, et al. Hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47:1286-98.

Acknowledgements:

The CATCH study was designed and implemented by the investigators and financially supported through unrestricted research grants from: Amgen and Pfizer Canada - Founding sponsors since January 2007; AbbVie Corporation and Hoffmann-LaRoche since 2011; Medexus Inc. since 2013;, Merck Canada since 2017, Sandoz Canada, Biopharmaceuticals since 2019,Gilead Sciences Canada since 2020 and Fresenius Kabi Canada Ltd. since 2021. Previously funded by Janssen Biotech from 2011-2016, UCB Canada and Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada from 2011-2018, Sanofi Genzyme from 2016-2017, and Eli Lilly Canada from 2016-2020.

Disclosure of Interests:

Brook Hadwen: None declared, Saverio Stranges: None declared, Neil Klar: None declared, Kuriya Bindee: None declared, Janet Pope Speakers bureau: UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB;, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Gilles Boire Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis., Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis., Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB Canada, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Edward Keystone Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Consultant of:: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, PuraPharm, Sanofi, Orit Schieir: None declared, Carter Thorne Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Pfizer, Abbvie, Celgene, CaREBiodam, Novartis, Diane Tin: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Gilead, Sanofi-Genzyme/Regeneron, Scipher, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, UCB, NIH, Lillian Barra: None declared

A Population-Based Approach to Reporting System-Level Performance Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Care

OBJECTIVE

To operationalize and report on nationally endorsed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PMs) using health administrative data for British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

All patients with RA in BC ages ≥18 years were identified between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2009 using health administrative data and followed until December 2014. PMs tested include: the percentage of incident patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit within 365 days; the percentage of prevalent patients with ≥1 rheumatologist visit per year; the percentage of prevalent patients dispensed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy; and time from RA diagnosis to DMARD therapy. Measures were reported on patients seen by rheumatologists, and in the total population.

RESULTS

The cohort included 38,673 incident and 57,922 prevalent RA cases. The percentage of patients seen by a rheumatologist within 365 days increased over time (35% in 2000 to 65% in 2009), while the percentage of RA patients under the care of a rheumatologist seen yearly declined (79% in 2001 to 39% in 2014). The decline was due to decreasing visit rates with increasing follow-up time rather than calendar effect. The percentage of RA patients dispensed a DMARD was suboptimal over follow-up (37% in 2014) in the total population but higher (87%) in those under current rheumatologist care. The median time to DMARD in those seen by a rheumatologist improved from 49 days in 2000 to 23 days in 2009, with 34% receiving treatment within the 14-day benchmark.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the operationalization and reporting of national PMs using administrative data and identifies gaps in care to further examine and address.

Patient and Rheumatologist Perspectives on Tapering DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

To understand the perspectives of patients and rheumatologists for tapering DMARDs in RA.

METHODS

Using semi-structured interview guides, we conducted individual interviews and focus groups with RA patients and rheumatologists, which were audiotaped and transcribed. We conducted a pragmatic thematic analysis to identify major themes, comparing and contrasting different views on DMARD tapering between patients and rheumatologists.

RESULTS

We recruited 28 adult patients with RA (64% women; disease duration 1-54 years) and 23 rheumatologists (52% women). Attitudes across both groups towards tapering DMARDs were ambivalent, ranging from wary to enthusiastic. Both groups expressed concerns, particularly the inability to 'recapture' the same level of disease control, while also acknowledging potential positive outcomes such as reduced drug harms. Patient tapering perspectives (whether to and when) changed over time and commonly included non-biologic DMARDs. Patient preferences were influenced by lived experiences, side effects, previous tapering experiences, disease trajectory, remission duration, and current life roles. Rheumatologists' perspectives varied on timing and patient profile to initiate tapering, and were informed by both data and clinical experience. Patients expressed interest in shared decision making (SDM) and close monitoring during tapering, with ready access to their healthcare team if problems arose. Rheumatologists were generally open to tapering (not stopping), though sometimes only when requested by their patients.

CONCLUSION

The perspectives of patients and rheumatologists on tapering DMARDs in RA vary and evolve over time. Rheumatologists should periodically discuss DMARD tapering with patients as part of SDM, and ensure monitoring and flare management plans are in place.

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.

Higher Checkpoint Inhibitor Arthritis Disease Activity may be Associated With Cancer Progression: Results From an Observational Registry

Objective

To describe clinical features associated with cancer outcomes of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)‐associated arthritis.

Methods

Observational study of patients with ICI‐arthritis enrolled in a single‐center registry. Arthritis phenotype and activity, medications, and cancer status were recorded at every visit. We used descriptive statistic, and Kaplan‐Meier curves using two‐sided log‐rank test and Cox regression analysis were used to identify factors associated with cancer progression‐free survival (PFS).

Results

Forty‐two patients with ICI‐arthritis were followed for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 7.4 (1.7, 14.7) months. Fifty‐seven percent were female, 33% had melanoma, and 69% received anti–programmed death ligand 1 monotherapy. Median time from ICI initiation to arthritis onset was 2.8 (0.8, 11.2) months. Sixty‐two percent had a rheumatoid arthritis (RA)‐like small‐joint presentation; 27% of all patients were rheumatoid factor and/or cyclic citrullinated peptide positive. Median (IQR) Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) on presentation was 15 (8, 24); 62% required systemic glucocorticoids, 55% required disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and 69% had ongoing arthritis at 6 months. Arthritis led to ICI discontinuation in five patients. In univariate analysis, baseline CDAI, DMARD use, earlier arthritis onset, and longer duration of follow‐up were associated with shorter PFS. In multivariable Cox regression analysis controlling for DMARD use and time to arthritis onset, CDAI was a significant predictor of cancer progression (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00‐1.19, P = 0.05)

Conclusion

ICI‐arthritis most commonly presents with an RA‐like phenotype. High disease activity, as measured by CDAI, may portend cancer progression.

Evaluating Quality of Care for Rheumatoid Arthritis for the Population of Alberta Using System-level Performance Measures

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated 4 national rheumatoid arthritis (RA) system-level performance measures (PM) in Alberta, Canada.

METHODS

Incident and prevalent RA cases ≥ 16 years of age since 2002 were identified using a validated case definition applied in provincial administrative data. Performance was ascertained through analysis of health data between fiscal years 2012/13-2015/16. Measures evaluated were as follows: proportion of incident RA cases with a rheumatologist visit within 1 year of first RA diagnosis code (PM1); proportion of prevalent RA patients who were dispensed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) annually (PM2); time from first visit with an RA code to DMARD dispensation and proportion of incident cases where the 14-day benchmark for dispensation was met (PM3); and proportion of patients seen in annual follow-up (PM4).

RESULTS

There were 31,566 prevalent and 2730 incident RA cases (2012/13). Over the analysis period, the proportion of patients seen by a rheumatologist within 1 year of onset (PM1) increased from 55% to 63%; however, the proportion of RA patients dispensed DMARD annually (PM2) remained low at 43%. While the median time to DMARD from first visit date in people who received DMARD improved over time from 39 days to 28 days, only 38-41% of patients received treatment within the 14-day benchmark (PM3). The percentage of patients seen in yearly follow-up (PM4) varied between 73-80%.

CONCLUSION

The existing Alberta healthcare system for RA is suboptimal, indicating barriers to accessing specialty care and treatment. Our results inform quality improvement initiatives required within the province to meet national standards of care.

SAT0127 REAL-WORLD PREDICTORS OF STARTING DIFFERENT ADVANCED DMARD TREATMENTS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A PROSPECTIVE INVESTIGATION FROM THE CANADIAN EARLY ARTHRITIS COHORT (CATCH) GROUP

Background:

RA patients with inadequate DMARD response may be treated with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi), non-TNFi or janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) [1].

Objectives:

Compare characteristics of real-world early RA (ERA) patients starting TNFi, non-TNFi, and JAKi post DMARD failure.

Methods:

Data were analyzed from early RA patients (symptoms < 1 year) enrolled in CATCH who started TNFi, non-TNFi or JAKi as first line advanced therapy from 2014 to 2019. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and chi-square tests summarized and compared secular trends and patient characteristics initiating each class of therapy. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done.

Results:

246 participants started advanced therapy during the study period; (75%) female, mean(SD) age 50(14) years. First line prescriptions for JAKi increased and TNFi decreased (Fig. 1). Those receiving JAKi had longer disease duration, fewer tender joints, and lower DAS28, CDAI, ESR, MD global (all p <0.05) (Table 1). The strongest predictor of starting JAKi was province (Ontario where access is preferential for JAKi and biosimilar TNFi) (Table 2). Those prescribed TNFi had shorter disease duration, younger age, fewer comorbidities, and treatment location outside Ontario (Table 1,2). Those starting non-TNFi had higher DAS28; predictors included older age, higher education, and more comorbidities (Table 1,2).

Table 1.

Characteristics prior to starting advanced therapy

VariableTotal Sample(N = 246)JAKi(N = 61)TNFi(N = 153)Non-TNFi(N = 32)p-value£Disease duration (months) mean (SD)39 (34.1)50.8 (39.3)32.5 (29.1)48 (38.6)0.0006DAS28 (ESR - CRP if ESR was missing) mean (SD)4.2 (1.4)3.6 (1.4)4.3 (1.4)4.8 (1.5)0.0012CDAI mean (SD)21.5 (14.8)16.5 (13.7)22.9 (14.8)24.8 (14.9)0.0089Tender joint count (0-28), median (IQR)§4 (7)2 (6)5 (8)6 (9)0.0224ESR median (IQR)§13 (20)12 (13)13 (20)28.0 (23.5)0.0448MD Global (0-10) mean (SD)4.2 (2.7)3.2 (2.7)4.4 (2.6)4.8 (2.8)0.0030

§IQR: 75 – 25 percentile

£p-value: ANOVA for continuous variable, chi-square for categorical

Table 2.

Multinomial regression for initiating advanced DMARD therapy

Disease stage & Clinical Disease ActivityAdvanced DMARDAdjusted for Age, sex, education, comorbidityFullyAdjustedφNon-TNF vs TNFJAK vsTNFNon-TNF vs TNFJAK vsTNFAge1.01 (0.98, 1.05)1.01 (0.99, 1.04)1.01 (0.97, 1.05)1.02 (0.99, 1.05)Women vs Men1.98 (0.71, 5.58)1.33 (0.63, 2.80)2.35 (0.76, 7.27)1.72 (0.73, 4.02)Education(< HS vs ≥ HS)2.92 (1.28, 6.63)1.49 (0.78, 2.86)2.83 (1.12, 7.15)2.08 (0.97, 4.47)RDCI baseline1.35 (1.01, 1.81)1.21 (0.95, 1.53)1.30 (0.95, 1.78)1.23 (0.94, 1.60)Private Insurance(No vs Yes)NINI1.26 (0.47, 3.40)0.99 (0.44, 2.25)RF PositiveNINI1.47 (0.56, 3.85)1.84 (0.82, 4.12)CDAININI1.01 (0.98, 1.04)0.97 (0.94, 1.00)RegionQuebec vs Ontario (ON)NINI0.59 (0.20, 1.72)0.44 (0.20, 0.94)West vs ONNINI1.32 (0.29, 5.98)0.11 (0.01, 0.99)

φAdjusted for; baseline age, sex, education, RDCI; province; RF positive in first year; private insurance; CDAI at visit prior to initiation

Conclusion:

Patient and physician related factors (location of practice) determined which advanced therapeutic was prescribed. JAKi use is increasing in ERA.

Reference:

[1]Smolen JS, Landewé RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Published Online First: 22 January 2020

Disclosure of Interests:

Madina Weiler: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, 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, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion,

Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly

Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Diane Tin: None declared, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer

, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB

SAT0104 MAINTENANCE OF SDAI REMISSION AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (PROS) FOLLOWING DOSE DE-ESCALATION OF ABATACEPT IN MTX-NAÏVE, ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+ PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA: RESULTS FROM AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

The Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) evaluated SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in ACPA+ patients (pts) with early, active RA.1Results from the 56-wk induction period (IP) showed a significantly greater proportion of pts treated with ABA + MTX (vs MTX alone) reported clinically meaningful improvements in HAQ-DI, global disease activity and pain, which were sustained at 52 wks.2

Objectives:

To report maintenance of SDAI remission and PROs from the AVERT-2 de-escalation (D-E) period.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. In this analysis, pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomised 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX, stepwise D-E (ABA every other wk + MTX for 24 wks then ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks in the D-E period. PROs included physical function (HAQ-DI [0–3; decrease=improvement] and Short-Form 36 [SF-36] v2.0 Physical Functioning Scale [PFS]; 0–100; increase=improvement), and fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F] score; 0–52; decrease=improvement). Endpoints included: proportion of pts in SDAI remission and pts with HAQ-DI response (decrease from IP Day [D]1 in HAQ-DI ≥0.30); adjusted mean change (adMC) from D-E D1 in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PFS or FACIT-F to D-E Wk 48. adMCs were estimated using a mixed effect model with repeated measures.

Results:

147 ABA + MTX-treated pts were re-randomised in the D-E period. Across re-randomised arms, the range of mean scores was 1.87–2.52 for SDAI and 0.18–0.30 for HAQ-DI at entry into D-E period (D-E D1). 74% of pts receiving ABA QW + MTX maintained SDAI remission at D-E Wk 48 (Fig 1); this proportion was higher than in the ABA withdrawal and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms. Pts continuing ABA QW + MTX maintained HAQ-DI response during D-E (Fig 1), but by D-E Wk 48 the proportion of pts with HAQ-DI response in the ABA withdrawal arm declined by 30%. At D-E Wk 48, a small numerical decrease (adMC –0.04) in HAQ-DI was observed in the ABA QW + MTX arm; increases were seen in the withdrawal (adMC 0.26) and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms (adMC 0.16). By D-E Wk 48, SF-36 PFS increased (adMC 1.68) in the ABA QW + MTX arm but decreased in the withdrawal (adMC –3.34) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC –1.45) arms. FACIT-F score increased during D-E in all arms, but the increase at D-E Wk 48 was lower in the ABA QW + MTX arm (adMC 0.79) vs the withdrawal (adMC 4.12) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC 2.41) arms. Similar trends were seen for other PROs including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-RA; while activity impairment remained stable in the ABA QW + MTX arm, there was a trend for worsening in the withdrawal arm.

Conclusion:

In the AVERT-2 D-E period, continued combination therapy (abatacept + MTX) resulted in maintenance of benefits on PROs, particularly physical functioning, in seropositive pts with early RA. D-E of abatacept followed by complete withdrawal was associated with the greatest loss of remission as well as worsening of PROs. The PRO results corresponded well to the maintenance of clinical (SDAI) remission.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

[2]Emery P, et al. ACR 2019; Atlanta, USA: Poster 1423.

Acknowledgments:

Joanna Wright (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lily, Pfizer, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (current); AbbVie, Lily, Pfizer (past), Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

SAT0102 NONINFLAMMATORY PAIN IS A FREQUENT PHENOMENON IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND RESPONDS WELL TO TREATMENT WITH SARILUMAB

Background:

Inflammation is clearly a key driver of pain in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, in some patients the level of pain exceeds what would be expected based on the amount of synovitis observed, which may indicate the presence of noninflammatory pain (NIP). Interleukin-6 (IL-6) has been shown in animal models to increase sensitization to pain and may play a role in NIP.

Objectives:

To assess the effect of sarilumab, a human IL-6 receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with moderate to severely active RA, on NIP and disease activity, stratified by baseline (BL) NIP status.

Methods:

The analysis included data from three Phase 3 studies of sarilumab: MOBILITY (NCT01061736), MONARCH (NCT02332590), and TARGET (NCT01709578). Patients received double-blind placebo or sarilumab 150 mg or 200 mg subcutaneously (SC) every 2 weeks (q2w), plus weekly csDMARD (MOBILITY and TARGET), or adalimumab 40 mg or sarilumab 200 mg SC q2w as monotherapy (MONARCH).

NIP was defined using an established formula: tender 28-joint count (TJC) – swollen 28-joint count (SJC) ≥7.1,2Patients were assessed for NIP at study BL and for change in NIP status at Weeks 12 and 24. The proportion of patients achieving ACR20/50/70, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10, and DAS28-CRP <3.2 at Week 24 was assessed in patients with and without BL NIP. No inferential statistics were performed.

Results:

Of 2112 patients in the analysis, 490 (23%) met the criteria for NIP at study BL: MOBILITY, n = 294/1197 (25%); MONARCH, n = 90/369 (24%); TARGET, n = 106/546 (19%). BL demographics were similar for patients with or without BL NIP: mean age (SD) was 52.6 (10.7) versus 51.2 (12.3) years, and 85% versus 81% were female. Patients with BL NIP had higher CDAI, DAS28-CRP, pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and TJC at BL versus patients without NIP (Table). Of patients with NIP at BL, those who received sarilumab were more likely to have no NIP at Weeks 12 and 24 versus patients who received placebo or adalimumab (Figure 1). The percentage of patients achieving improvements in disease activity at Week 24 was greater for sarilumab versus adalimumab among both patients with and without BL NIP, and these differences were larger among patients with BL NIP for all assessments except ACR50 (Figure 2).

Table.

Baseline characteristics

Patients with TJC – SCJ ≥7Mean (SD)Yes (n = 490)No (n = 1622)Duration of RA, years9.1 (8.6)9.7 (8.4)TJC, 0–2821.7 (4.7)14.3 (6.2)SJC, 0–2810.7 (4.3)13.1 (6.0)CRP, mg/L22.7 (27.0)22.9 (24.0)HAQ-DI, 0–31.8 (0.6)1.7 (0.6)DAS28-CRP6.4 (0.7)5.9 (0.9)CDAI46.0 (9.4)40.4 (13.0)Pain VAS72.3 (18.2)67.0 (20.7)

Conclusion:

NIP was prevalent at BL in the patient populations assessed. Among patients with BL NIP, a lower proportion continued to have NIP at Weeks 12 and 24 when treated with sarilumab versus placebo or adalimumab. Patients with and without BL NIP had greater improvements in pain when treated with sarilumab versus adalimumab. The difference in clinical improvement was greater among patients with BL NIP versus without BL NIP for most measures. These trends support the emerging concept that mechanisms other than direct inflammation may contribute to pain in RA, potentially mediated via IL-6 signaling.

References:

[1]Durán J et al.Rheumatology. 2015;54:2166–70

[2]Pollard LC et al.Rheumatology. 2010;49:924–8

Acknowledgments:

Study funding and medical writing support (Joseph Hodgson, PhD, Adelphi Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK) provided by Sanofi Genzyme (Cambridge, MA, USA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, NJ, USA) in accordance with GPP3 guidelines.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ernest Choy Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bio-Cancer, Chugai Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Novimmune, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chelsea Therapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospita, Ionis, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merrimack Pharmaceutical, Napp, Novartis, Novimmune, ObsEva, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, SynAct Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, Tonix, UCB, Speakers bureau: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Yvonne Lee Shareholder of: Cigna-Express Scripts, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Highland Instruments, Inc., Gregory St John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hubert van Hoogstraten Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Kerri Ford Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Amy Praestgaard Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Anthony Sebba Consultant of: Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Roche, Sanofi

FRI0030 MORE THAN HALF OF NEWLY DIAGNOSED RA PATIENTS ARE NOT CONVINCED OF THE NECESSITY OF RA MEDICINES: ASSOCIATIONS WITH RA CHARACTERISTICS, SYMPTOMS, AND FUNCTION IN THE CANADIAN EARLY ARTHRITIS COHORT (CATCH)

Background:

Although DMARDs are essential for early aggressive control of RA to reduce symptoms and disability, medication adherence is variable. Beliefs about the necessity of medications and safety concerns predict adherence and are modifiable.

Objectives:

To examine associations among RA medication necessity beliefs and concerns, sociodemographics, RA characteristics, symptom level and function in newly diagnosed RA patients.

Methods:

Baseline data were analyzed from participants in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) who enrolled between 2017-2020 and completed the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ) and PROMIS-29. All met ACR1987 or 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and had active RA at enrollment. BMQ Necessity (N) and Concerns (C) scores were classified ashigh(≥20) orlow(<20) and categorized into: Accepting (↑N ↓C); Ambivalent (↑N↑C); Sceptical (↓N↑C); and 4) Indifferent (↓N↓C). Groups were compared using ANOVA and chi-square tests.

Results:

The 362 patients were mostly white (83%) women (66%) with a mean (SD) age of 56 (15), symptom duration of 6 (3) months, and 32% were obese (BMI≥30). More than half (56%) were DMARD-naive or minimally exposed. Mean N and C scores were similar between men and women; 54% were classified asIndifferent, 31%Accepting, 9%Ambivalent,and 6%Sceptical.

As compared to those classified asAccepting, moreIndifferent participantssmoked, had a healthy weight, lower TJCs, and trend for lower CDAI (Table). Groups were similar by sociodemographics, symptom duration, and DMARD/steroid use, except fewerIndifferentpatients received MTX.Indifferentpatients had statistically and meaningfully lower patient global, depression, anxiety, fatigue and pain interference, and higher function and participation scores (Table).

Conclusion:

Many new RA patients had low medication necessity beliefs and concerns, and only 31% had high necessity beliefs and low concerns around diagnosis. Lifestyle and lower CDAI, TJCs, symptoms and functional impacts were associated with RA medication indifference. Identifying medication indifference can prompt discussions about medication beliefs/concerns to facilitate shared decision-making and adherence.

Disclosure of Interests:

Viviane Ta: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, 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, Diane Tin: None declared, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie

THU0179 PERSISTENCE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS ON BIOSIMILAR AND BIO-ORIGINATOR ETANERCEPT: A POOLED ANALYSIS OF PAN-CANADIAN COHORTS

Background:

Biosimilar etanercept (ETA-B) was recently introduced in Canada but real-world data descriptions of drug persistence (and comparisons with the originator product, ETA-O) are still scarce.

Objectives:

To describe and compare persistence of ETA-B and ETA-O in RA.

Methods:

We used data from four ongoing, prospective cohorts in Canada: the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), the Rheumatoid Arthritis Pharmacovigilance Program and Outcomes Research in Therapeutics (RAPPORT), the Early Undifferentiated Polyarthritis (EUPA) cohort, and the RHUMADATA® registry. We studied biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced RA adults initiating ETA-B or ETA-O between Jan. 2015 and Oct. 2019. Switchers from ETA-O to ETA-B (or vice-versa) were included. We assessed persistence of therapy in the first 12 or 24 months, measured as time from therapy initiation (time zero) to discontinuation. Individuals switching between products could contribute further person-time to the new exposure category. Multivariable Cox regression models were performed with each cohort dataset separately, following a common protocol. Model variables included age, sex, comorbidity, past biologic use, and disease duration. After testing for between-study heterogeneity (Higgin’s I2), cohort-estimated hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

Results:

We identified 262 episodes of etanercept use (118 ETA-B and 144 ETA-O) from 250 RA patients. Sex, age, and other baseline characteristics across the four cohorts are shown in Table 1. Across cohorts, there was considerable variation in RA duration at the time of initiating ETA-B or ETA-O. In the pooled analysis, the HR for discontinuation at 24 months comparing ETA-B to ETA-O was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.26-0.98). The pooled analysis for therapy discontinuation at 12 months adjusted HR in this analysis was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.42-1.60).

Table 1.

Characteristics of studied patients according to their treatment episodes, biosimilar etanercept (ETA-B) or bio-originator etanercept (ETA-O).

CharacteristicEUPARAPPORTRHUMADATACATCHETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-ON=19N=27N=32N=30N=39N=52N=28N=35Female sex, (%)12 (63)18 (67)20 (63)22 (73)28 (72)38 (73)20 (71)27 (77)Mean age in years1, SD59 (13)59 (16)51 (15)54 (15)59 (15)54 (15)55 (12)51 (13)Current smoker, (%)3 (17)5 (21)9 (32)5 (19)8 (21)9 (17)5 (18)8 (23)Cardiovascular disease, (%)0 (0)0 (0)1 (3.1)1 (3.3)8 (21)2 (4)NANADiabetes, (%)0 (0)0 (0)4 (13)1 (3)2 (5)3 (6)NANAHypertension, (%)NANA5 (16)4 (13)14 (36)22 (42)NANARA duration in years1, SD2 (3)7 (13)8 (6)12 (15)12 (12)9 (9)4 (4)3 (3)DAS-2812 (NA)4 (2.8)6 (1)6 (1)4 (2)4 (1)4.0 (2)4 (2)SDAI113 (14)44 (5)NANA21 (15)23 (8)23 (14)25 (16)Past oral steroids, N(%)Past biologic, N(%)15 (79)17 (63)6 (19)4 (13)29 (74)31 (60)9 (32)13 (37)Past non-biologic DMARD,8 (42)6 (22)2 (6)0 (0)21 (54)20 (38)19 (68)21 (60)N(%)19 (100)27 (100)30 (94)26 (87)39 (100)52(100)25 (89)33 (94)

1At time zero or at the closest date before time zero. SD=standard deviation

Conclusion:

Despite wide confidence intervals, the 24-month data suggested potential better persistence with ETA-B versus ETA-O, with a similar trend at 12 months. Some of the observed associations may be related to residual confounding (e.g. disease activity, time-dependent effects of concomitant medications) and/or survivorship bias (in patients transitioning from ETA-O to ETA-B).

Disclosure of Interests:

Cristiano S Moura: None declared, 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 Coupal: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Sasha Bernatsky: None declared

FRI0090 MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL RESPONSE WITH ABATACEPT IN COMBINATION WITH MTX IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA WHO ARE MTX-NAÏVE AND ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+: RESULTS FROM THE INDUCTION PERIOD OF AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

In the 56-wk induction period (IP) of the Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268), more patients (pts) achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3) with abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX at IP Wk 52.1It is unknown whether each individual pt within a treatment (Tx) group achieves and sustains the same efficacy endpoints at all time points during the IP.

Objectives:

To investigate whether ABA effectiveness is sustained by individual pts who achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3), SDAI low disease activity (LDA; >3.3–11), DAS28 (CRP) <2.6, ACR50/70 response or Boolean remission at IP Wk 24 (AVERT-2 primary endpoint) and both Wks 40 and 52 (Wks 40/52).

Methods:

Pts were randomised 3:2 to blinded SC ABA (125 mg/wk) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction Tx for 56 wks. Key inclusion criteria: age ≥18 yrs; RA diagnosis (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria); RA duration ≤6 mos; SDAI >11; ACPA+; CRP >3 mg/L or ESR ≥28 mm/h; TJC ≥3 and SJC ≥3; DMARD naïve. Response rates were investigated by Tx arm in the cohort 1 analysis population (all randomised pts treated in the IP [intent-to-treat analysis]).

Results:

Of randomised cohort 1, 752 pts were treated during the IP: 451 with ABA + MTX and 301 with ABA PBO + MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar across Tx arms.1Stringent SDAI remission endpoint at IP Wk 24 was achieved by 22% of ABA + MTX-treated pts; of these, 56% sustained SDAI remission at IP Wks 40/52 (Table). A similar proportion of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved (17%) and sustained (58%) Boolean remission at IP Wks 24 and 40/52. At IP Wk 24, 42% of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 and 74% sustained DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 to IP Wks 40/52; a high proportion of patients sustained ACR50/70 responses at IP Wks 40/52 (83% and 79%, respectively). A lower proportion of pts sustained SDAI LDA to IP Wks 40/52 vs other endpoints (Table). Most efficacy endpoints were achieved by fewer pts who received ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX (Table); among responders in this Tx group, fewer sustained remission at Wks 40/52, which correlates with a higher proportion of pts sustaining SDAI LDA at Wks 40/52 with ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX.

Conclusion:

The majority of individual pts with RA who achieved clinically stringent endpoints such as SDAI remission, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 or Boolean remission, as well as clinically meaningful endpoints such as ACR50/70 at IP Wk 24 with weekly SC abatacept, sustained their responses to Wks 40/52. The high proportion of patients achieving early stringent remission and response to SC abatacept by individual pts may be indicative of sustained efficacy over time.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

Table .

Proportion of Pts With Response at IP Wk 24 Who Also Achieved Remission at Wks 40/52

EndpointResponders at IP Wk 24, n (%)Responders at IP Wk 24 and Wks 40/52, n/N (%)ABA + MTX(n=451)ABA PBO + MTX(n=301)ABA + MTX*ABA PBO + MTX*SDAI remission (≤3.3)100 (22)40 (13)56/100 (56)17/40 (43)SDAI low disease activity (>3.3–11)167 (37)82 (27)46/167 (28)32/82 (39)DAS28 (CRP) <2.6188 (42)78 (26)139/188 (74)43/78 (55)ACR50 response†260 (58)125 (42)215/260 (83)92/125 (74)ACR70 response†156 (35)66 (22)123/156 (79)42/66 (64)Boolean remission76 (17)29 (10)44/76 (58)8/29 (28)

*% based on number of pts within each Tx group who achieved response at IP Wk 24 (denominator);†Response at IP Wks 24 and 52

Acknowledgments:

Lola Parfitt (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

FRI0087 DURABILITY OF CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS OR PSORIASIS OVER THREE YEARS: AN ANALYSIS OF POOLED CLINICAL TRIAL DATA

Background:

Durability over time varies according to the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a drug.1However, durability may vary between patient (pt) subgroups,1,2and physicians should consider pt characteristics when making treatment decisions. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent approved for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and plaque psoriasis (PSO).3However, little is known about the impact of pt baseline characteristics on long-term CZP durability.

Objectives:

To investigate the durability of CZP and reasons for discontinuation over 3 years (yrs) in subgroups of pts with RA or PSO using pooled clinical trial data.

Methods:

27 RA and 3 PSO clinical trials were pooled for indication-specific analyses. Kaplan-Meier curves were calculated to estimate CZP durability for pt subgroups by age, gender, disease duration, prior anti-TNF use and geographic region. Reasons for CZP discontinuation were investigated.

Results:

6927 RA and 1112 PSO pts were included; mean ages were 53.0 yrs (standard deviation [SD]: 12.2 yrs) and 45.4 (13.0) yrs, respectively. 79.3% RA pts were female (of all patients, 19.4% were women of childbearing age [18–<45 yrs; WoCBA]) compared with 33.5% (15.2% WoCBA) in PSO. Mean disease durations were 6.4 (6.9) yrs for RA and 18.4 (12.3) yrs for PSO. 18.5% RA and 13.3% PSO pts had prior anti-TNF use. Maximum CZP exposure was ~8 yrs for RA and ~3 yrs for PSO. At 1 yr, 63.4% of RA pts remained on CZP vs 80.3% PSO pts, decreasing to 49.2% RA pts and 70.1% PSO pts at 3 yrs (Table 1). Reasons for discontinuation, at any time during the trials, included lack of efficacy (RA 13.5%; PSO 1.8%), adverse events (RA 11.9%; PSO 8.1%), consent withdrawn (RA 6.7%; PSO 6.7%), lost to follow-up (RA 1.8%; PSO 4.3%), protocol violation (RA 1.7%; PSO 0.3%) and other (RA 9.2%; PSO 8.7%). In RA pts, CZP durability was lower in the elderly and in pts with disease duration <1 yr. In PSO, durability was lower in pts with disease duration <1 yr or prior anti-TNF use. Durability was lower in WoCBA pts than male pts aged 18–<45 yrs for both indications. CZP durability was lower in Western Europe and North America compared to other regions.

Table 1.

CZP durability at 3 years,[a] by patient subgroup

% patientsRAPSOAll49.270.1Age, yrs 18–<4552.166.3 45–<6549.468.3 ≥6543.369.4Gender Female49.364.1 Male48.269.2 WoCBA51.162.0 Male aged 18–<45 yrs56.568.3Prior anti-TNF use Yes49.360.1 No49.668.5Disease duration, yrs <143.239.6 1–<552.663.6 5–<1051.464.4 ≥1048.769.7Region Asia-Pacific58.5 Central Europe61.578.8 Eastern Europe54.2 Latin America57.1 N America36.653.9 W Europe33.867.7 Rest of the world66.3

[a] For PSO, the 3 year analysis was calculated with Week 144 data. CZP: certolizumab pegol; N: North; PSO: psoriasis; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; TNF: tumour necrosis factor; W: Western; yrs: years.

Conclusion:

Overall, CZP durability was similar to that reported for other anti-TNFs with some differences between indication and subgroups.1Factors influencing durability included age, disease duration and geographic region. Gender differences were observed in the 18–45 yrs age group, however, both male and female CZP durability was higher than in older RA pts.

References:

[1]Neovius M. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:354–60;2.Lie E. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:970–8;3.EMA. CIMZIA SmPC 2019. Available at:https://www.ema.europa.eu[Last accessed 09/01/20].

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Editorial services were provided by Costello Medical.

Disclosure of Interests:

Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Kristian Reich Grant/research support from: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Consultant of: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Speakers bureau: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Christina Popova Employee of: UCB Pharma, Nicola Tilt Employee of: UCB Pharma, Andrew Blauvelt Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, FLX Bio, Forte, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie

OP0263-HPR MAJOR STRESSORS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO RA DIAGNOSIS: IMPACT ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES ONE YEAR LATER

Background:

Stress is implicated in RA onset and poorer prognoses through changes in neuro-endocrine and autoimmune function. Although many people with RA link disease onset to recent stressful life events, results from retrospective studies are unclear.

Objectives:

To describe the incidence of major stressors(+STRESS) in year prior to diagnosis and compare characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of newly diagnosed RA patients with and without+STRESSat 0 and 12 months.

Methods:

Data were from early RA patients (symptoms <1 yr) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) from 2007-17 who met 1987/2010 ACR/EULAR criteria and had ≥12 months of follow-up. Patients reported major psychological (death, divorce/separation, family, financial, other) and physical (motor vehicle accident, surgery, major illness/infection, other) stressors in previous year. We used independent t-tests and chi square to compare characteristics by stressors at baseline, and multivariable regression to examine the impact of+STRESSon disease activity and PROs at 1 year, adjusting for age, sex, education, fibromyalgia, and SJC.

Results:

The 1933 adults were mostly female (72%), with a mean (SD) age of 55 (15) years. 52% reported 1+ stressors in previous year; family (48%), financial stress (36%), death (35%), surgery (28%), and major illness (26%) were the most common stressors. Patients with +STRESS were more likely to be women, younger, have more comorbidities including fibromyalgia, and higher mean DAS28. Patients with +STRESS also had significantly higher mean pain, fatigue, depression, sleep disturbance, patient global, and HAQ scores at baseline.

At 1 year, SJC and the proportion in DAS28 REM was similar between groups. However, PROs (pain, HAQ, Fatigue, Pt Global, Depression, Poor Sleep) remained higher in+STRESS, with evidence of an additive effect for number of stressors and having both physical and psychological stressors (Table). The greatest impacts were on mood, sleep disturbance, and fatigue.

Conclusion:

In this pan-Canadian early RA cohort, more than half reported 1+ stressful life events in the year prior to diagnosis. Individuals reporting major stressors had significantly worse pain, patient global, disability, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance at diagnosis; 1 year later, though disease activity was similar between groups, the effects of +STRESS on PROs persisted. Early RA patients with recent major stressors may benefit from emotional support and stress reduction to optimize how they feel and function.

Mean (SD) or N (%)No Stress(N=928; 48%)Physical(N=131; 7%)Psychological(N=658; 34%)Both(N=216; 11%)Age56 (15)56 (15)53 (14)52 (15)Women622 (67%)82 (63%)512 (78%)174 (81%)College Education464 (50%)76 (58%)345 (52%)126 (58%)Rheum Dis Comorbid Index1.1 (1.2)1.4 (1.4)1.1 (1.3)1.4 (1.3)OA or Spinal pain168 (18%)35 (27%)117 (18%)55 (25%)Fibromyalgia diagnosis15 (2%)2 (2%)13 (2%)11 (5%)Symptom duration (months)5.6 (3.0)5.7 (3.0)5.9 (3.0)5.9 (3.0)DAS28 – mean5.0 (1.4)5.1 (1.5)5.0 (1.5)5.2 (1.4)MTX ±csDMARDs679 (73%)100 (76%)489 (74%)166 (77%)Oral Steroids295 (32%)40 (31%)215 (33%)55 (25%)Pain (0-10)5.3 (2.8)5.5 (2.9)5.7 (2.8)6.2 (2.8)HAQ-DI1.0 (0.7)1.2 (0.7)1.1 (0.7)1.3 (0.7)Fatigue (0-10)4.7 (3.1)5.0 (3.0)5.7 (2.9)5.9 (2.9)Patient Global (0-10)5.6 (2.9)6.0 (2.9)6.0 (2.9)6.4 (3.0)Depression (SF12 MCS < 45.6)329 (35%)54 (41%)356 (54%)123 (57%)Poor sleep (0-10)4.5 (3.4)4.8 (3.3)5.3 (3.2)6.0 (3.1)

Disclosure of Interests:

Nicole Andersen: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, 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, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Diane Tin: None declared, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer

Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion,

Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly

Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie

FRI0024 HOW OFTEN DOES REACHING TARGET MISS THE MARK? LONGITUDINAL PATTERNS OF REMISSION IN REAL-WORLD EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background:

Early diagnosis and rapid initiation of DMARDs following a treat-to-target approach have made remission a realizable goal for many with RA. Yet, some patients are unable to sustain remission over time.

Objectives:

To describe longitudinal patterns of remission and identify predictors of sustained vs transient remission in real-world early RA patients.

Methods:

Data were from the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), a prospective study of early RA patients (symptoms < 1 year) treated in rheumatology clinics across Canada from 2007- 2019. The sample was limited to patients with active disease at enrolment who later reached remission (SDAI<=3.3) and were followed for 12-24 months thereafter. Patients were classified as in sustained remission (Pattern 1) or transient remission with transient remission patients divided into those who transitioned from REM to LDA only (Pattern 2) and those who transitioned from REM to MDA or HDA (Pattern 3), over FU. Multi-adjusted multinomial regression was used to identify predictors of transient remission patterns.

Results:

The study included 1,419 (46%) CATCH participants that reached remission. At enrolment, most (70%) were female, mean(sd) SDAI was high (27(15)) and 92% were treated with csDMARDs. Only 47% remained in sustained remission by 12-months and, only 40% by 24 months (Pattern 1) (Figure). Among patients with transient remission patterns, transitions to LDA only (Pattern 2) were more common than to MDA/HDA over FU (Pattern 3) (Fig 1). Older age, female sex, smoking, higher comorbidity index and positive serology, were significantly associated with transient remission patterns (Table). There were also borderline significant associations between transient remission patterns and longer time to remission, lack of early MTX treatment and reducing treatment after remission (Table).

Table .

Adjusted Multinomial Regression Results of Predictors of Transient Remission Patterns over 24-Month Follow Up

Pattern 2 vs, Pattern 1OR (95% CI)Pattern 3 vs. Pattern 1OR (95% CI)Age1.01 (1.00, 1.02)1.01 (0.99, 1.02)Women vs Men1.78 (1.33, 2.39)1.63 (1.09, 2.44)Current smoker1.57 (1.09, 2.28)1.53 (0.95, 2.47)RDCI at baseline1.11 (0.99, 1.25)1.30 (1.13, 1.50)Seropositive1.38 (1.03, 1.85)1.21 (0.81, 1.80)MTX first 3 months1.18 (0.85, 1.63)0.76 (0.51, 1.12)Time to remission (months)1.01 (1.00, 1.01)1.01 (1.00, 1.02)Treatment reduction after REM vs. No Change1.33 (0.96, 1.86)1.01 (0.99, 1.02)

  Pattern 1: Sustained REM

  Pattern 2: Transient REM: Transitions to LDA only

  Pattern 3: Transient REM: Transitions to MDA/HDA

   RDCI: Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (range 0-9)

  Treatment reduction: Change from biologic or JAK to csDMARD(s) OR reduction in number of csDMARDs OR change from MTX +/- csDMARDs to non-MTX csDMARD

Figure.

Distribution of Disease Activity States over 12-24 After First Achieving SDAI REM

Conclusion:

Results of this large longitudinal analysis of real-world data suggests that < 50% of patients that reach remission sustain remission for 12-24months. Closer monitoring of patients with prognostic indicators for transient remission and additional research focusing on why remission is lost may help improve the rates of sustained remission.

References:

[1]Ajeganova S, Huizinga T. Sustained remission in rheumatoid arthritis: latest evidence and clinical considerations. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2017;9(10):249-62.

Disclosure of Interests:

Orit Schieir: None declared, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Marie-France Valois: None declared, 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, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Diane Tin: None declared, Vivian Bykerk: None declared

FRI0032 REGIONAL AND WIDESPREAD PATTERNS OF NON-ARTICULAR PAIN ARE COMMON AT RA DIAGNOSIS AND CONTRIBUTE TO POOR OUTCOMES AT 12 MONTHS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF PAIN PATTERNS IN CANADIANS WITH RA

Background:

Persistent pain can occur in early RA patients, despite improvement in synovitis and may be due to coexisting non-articular pain (NAP). Though NAP is often attributed to fibromyalgia and widespread NAP, regional NAP syndromes may be more common and under-recognized.

Objectives:

To describe patterns of NAP, predictors of persistent NAP and impact on outcomes in the first year following early RA diagnosis.

Methods:

Data were from participants enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) between2017-2019who completed 0,6,12-month evaluations with patient-reported outcomes [PROs] and clinical data available. We used the McGill Body Pain Diagram (BPD) to classify patients as experiencing no NAP, regional (RP:1-2 regions) or widespread NAP (WP:3-5 regions). Multinomial regression was used to identify baseline predictors of persistent RP and WP at 12-months. Multi-adjusted GEE with linear and logit links were used to estimate time-varying associations of NAP patterns with outcomes updated at each time point.

Results:

Study included 421 participants: 66% were female, with a mean(sd) age 56 (14); 72% were seropositive and 90% were treated with MTX ± csDMARDs as initial therapy. NAP at baseline was common (55%), with majority (62%) reporting regional NAP. NAP prevalence was 33% at 12 months (Figure). Female sex and baseline depressive symptoms were independent predictors of widespread NAP at 12 months while poorer function and lack of early MTX treatment independently predicted regional NAP, at 12 mos. Regional and widespread NAP were associated with lower likelihood of remission in adjusted models that accounted for changes in NAP and remission over time (Table).

Figure.

Point prevalence of regional and widespread NAP at baseline, 6 and 12 months.

Table .

Results of Multi-Adjusted GEE Logistic Regression showing Regional and Widespread NAP is associated with a reduced likelihood of achieving Stringent Remission Targets

Conclusion:

NAP is commonly reported in early RA pts seen in real world settings. Regional NAP was more common than WSP at all time-points, but both NAP patterns were associated lower odds of achieving remission targets by 12 months. These data support considering the role of NAP when assessing RA treatment efficacy during clinical visits and warrant different treatment approaches to reduce symptoms in RA patients receiving target-based care.

Disclosure of Interests:

Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, 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, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion,

Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly

Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Diane Tin: None declared, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie

SAT0053 ESTIMATING REAL-WORLD UNMET NEEDS FOR REACHING REMISSION IN THE FIRST YEAR FOLLOWING EARLY RA DIAGNOSIS: RESULTS FROM THE CANADIAN EARLY ARTHRITIS COHORT (CATCH)

Background:

Several composite RA disease activity indices are commonly used in clinical practice and research. Different disease activity indices however can be inconsistent in classifying remission (REM).

Objectives:

1) Compare remission prevalence across 4 common RA indices; 2) compare changes in remission across indices; and, 3) Identify predictors of persistent active disease across all indices, in real-world early RA patients over 1 year follow up.

Methods:

Data were from patients with early RA (symptoms < 1 year) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) between 2007 and 2018. Participants had active disease at enrolment, were treated with csDMARDs and completed standardized clinical assessments every 3-months. Remission status was assessed using 4 indices: 1) DAS28< 2.6 OR DAS28CRP < 2.5, 2) CDAI ≤ 2.8, 3) SDAI≤ 3.3, and 4) ACR/EULAR Boolean remission – SJC28, TJC28, CRP, PGA all ≦1. T-tests/ chi-squared tests were used to compare differences in remission prevalence by 1 year, and changes in remission before and after a QI program. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of persistent active disease on all 4 indices.

Results:

1202 adults were eligible for this analysis. At enrolment, 877 (73%) were women, mean (sd) age was 55 (14), average disease activity was high (DAS28 5.1 (1.4); CDAI 27 (14); SDAI 29 (15)). Prevalence of remission by 12-months follow up was 14-21% higher when estimated with the DAS28 compared with CDAI, SDAI and Boolean criteria, and 378 (31%) did not achieve remission according to any of the 4 indices (Fig 1). Improvement in remission after a QI program however was similar across all 4 indices(~+15-17%). In adjusted logistic regression, Persistent active disease across all measures was most strongly associated with positive serostatus and smoking in men, and with obesity and more tender joints in women. Pain and lower education were predictors in BOTH men and women (Table 2)

Table 1.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Predicting Persistent Active Disease by 12-months across ALL RA indices

Conclusion:

In the absence of a single “best measure” that also takes in to account the patient’s perspective, we estimate unmet needs for achieving remission in the first year of follow up in 1 in 3 ERA patients who did not achieve remission by ANY of the 4 indices.

References:

[1] Kuriya B, Sun Y, Boire G, Haraoui B, etal. Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis – A Comparison of New ACR/EULAR Remission Criteria to Established Criteria.J Rheumatol2012;39:1155-1158.

Disclosure of Interests:

Orit Schieir: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Marie-France Valois: None declared, 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, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion,

Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly

Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer

, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Diane Tin: None declared, Vivian Bykerk: None declared

FRI0037 ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PREDICTED BY HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE AT ONE YEAR

Background:

Patients with RA are at greater risk of mortality than the general population. Higher HAQ disability has been associated with hospitalizations and mortality in established RA; whether HAQ disability predicts mortality in early RA (ERA) is unknown.

Objectives:

The objective of this study is to analyze how well the HAQ can predict future mortality in patients with early RA.

Methods:

Data were from adult early RA patients (symptoms <1 year) enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) between 2007 and 2017; who initiated treatment with 1 or more DMARDs and had completed HAQ data at baseline and 1 year. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and chi-square tests were used to summarize and compare baseline patient characteristics including sociodemographic variables, RA characteristics and comorbidities amongst deceased and non-deceased patients. Discrete-time proportional hazards models were used to estimate crude and multi-adjusted associations between HAQ at baseline and 1 year, respectively, with all-cause mortality in each year of follow up.

Results:

This study included 1724 patients with early RA; mean age was 55 years and 72% were female. In 10 years of follow up, 62 deaths (2.4%) occurred. Deceased patients had higher HAQ scores and DAS28 scores at baseline and at 1 year versus the non-deceased group. Age, male sex, lower education, smoking, more comorbidities, higher baseline disease activity and steroid use were associated with mortality in unadjusted survival models (Table 1). Contrary to HAQ at baseline, the association between all-cause mortality and HAQ at 1 year remained significant even after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, disease activity, smoking, education, seropositivity, symptom duration and steroid use in adjusted survival models (Table 2).

Table 1.

Unadjusted survival model: Association of each variable with all-cause mortality

Baseline VariableUnadjustedHazard OR95% CISocio-DemographicAge (years)1.101.07 – 1.13Female0.370.22 – 0.62Caucasian (white or European)1.010.46 – 2.24Aboriginal1.710.61 – 4.76Education > high school degree0.480.28 – 0.82Current Smoker1.811.01 – 3.24Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (0-9)1.601.36 – 1.87RA CharacteristicsSymptom duration (months)0.990.91 – 1.08Seropositivity in first year1.110.55 – 2.23DAS28 ESR or CRP if ESR is missing1.261.06 – 1.51Oral Steroid use1.751.03 – 2.98Table 2.

Multivariable discrete-time survival models: HAQ baseline vs 1 year

ModelModel 1:Crude(Time + HAQ-DI)Model 2:Adjusted for age + sexModel 3:Adjusted for Model 2 + DAS28 + RDCIModel 4:Adjusted for Model 3 + education, smoking, seropositivity, symptom duration and oral steroids useModel 5:Adjusted for Model 3 + smoking, symptom duration onlyHAQ-DI (0-3) (at baseline)1.461.02 – 2.091.370.96 – 1.951.250.81 – 1.941.320.85 – 2.041.300.84 – 2.00HAQ-DI (0-3) (at 1 year)2.581.78 – 3.722.401.63 – 3.521.751.10 – 2.771.871.16 – 3.021.731.09 – 2.74

*Hazard OR, 95% CI

~HAQ-DI: (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index); RDCI: Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index; DAS28: Disease Activity Score

Conclusion:

Higher HAQ at 1 year was significantly associated with all-cause mortality in a large early RA cohort suggesting that poorer disease control and function in the first year of RA contributes to higher mortality.

Disclosure of Interests:

Safoora Fatima: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Susan J. Bartlett Consultant of: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Abbvie, 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, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Glen Hazlewood: None declared, Carol Hitchon Grant/research support from: UCB Canada; Pfizer Canada, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion,

Crescendo Bioscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Genentech Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly

Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, UCB., Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Diane Tin: None declared, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Centocor, Janssen, Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Medexus/Medac, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Janet Pope Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eicos Sciences, Eli Lilly & Company, Emerald, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: UCB

EP25 Impact of sarilumab on unacceptable pain and inflammation control in moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in 3 Phase 3 studies

Background

In RA patients, unacceptable pain (UP) may persist despite inflammation control (refractory pain [RP]). Sarilumab is indicated (either with methotrexate or as monotherapy if methotrexate is not tolerated/appropriate) for adults with moderately-to-severely active RA with an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatics (csDMARD). The recommended dose is 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) with dose reduction to 150 mg if required for management of laboratory abnormalities. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of subcutaneous sarilumab 150 or 200 mg q2w vs comparators showed meaningful improvements in pain. This analysis assessed UP and RP in these trials.

Methods

RCTs evaluated sarilumab 150 and 200 mg q2w vs placebo (+csDMARDs: MOBILITY/NCT01061736 and TARGET/NCT01709578) and sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs adalimumab 40 mg q2w (MONARCH/NCT02332590). Post-hoc analyses calculated odds ratios (ORs) of UP (based on patient acceptable symptom state on a threshold of visual analog scale pain &gt;40 mm [0-100]), RP (UP+C-reactive protein &lt;10 mg/L), and RP-strict (RP + ≤1 swollen joint count [SJC]), and associations between pain and fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) and disease activity (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], SJC and tender joint count [TJC]). P values are nominal.

Results

Across all three trials, sarilumab 150 and 200 mg q2w had lower odds of UP (p &lt; 0.05; ORs 0.39-0.46 vs placebo and 0.54 vs adalimumab). In MOBILITY, sarilumab 150 and 200 mg q2w had lower odds (p &lt; 0.05) of RP vs placebo at Week 24 (ORs 0.60 [0.38,0.93] and 0.57 [0.37,0.87]) and Week 52 (ORs 0.64 [0.37,1.02] and 0.62 [0.37,1.02]), and RP-strict at Week 52 (0.41 [0.19,0.90] and 0.35 [0.16,0.76]). In TARGET, sarilumab 150 mg q2w had lower odds (p &lt; 0.05) of RP-strict at Week 24. Higher pain was associated with worse FACIT-fatigue, HAQ, SJC and TJC scores (all p &lt; 0.001).

Conclusion

Sarilumab was associated with lower odds of UP or RP vs adalimumab or placebo.

Disclosures

V. Bykerk: Consultancies; Abbvie, Amgen, Brainstorm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Scipher, Union Chimique Belge. Shareholder/stock ownership; Abbvie, Amgen, Brainstorm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Scipher, Union Chimique Belge. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Brainstorm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Gilead, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Scipher, Union Chimique Belge. W. Wei: Shareholder/stock ownership; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. S. Boklage: Shareholder/stock ownership; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. T. Kimura: Shareholder/stock ownership; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. S. Fiore: Shareholder/stock ownership; Sanofi. Other; Sanofi. G. St John: Shareholder/stock ownership; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Other; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate, in a proof-of-concept study, a decision aid that incorporates hypothetical choices in the form of a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), to help patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understand their values and nudge them towards a value-centric decision between methotrexate and triple therapy (a combination of methotrexate, sulphasalazine and hydroxychloroquine).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the decision aid, patients completed a series of 6 DCE choice tasks. Based on the patient's pattern of responses, we calculated his/her probability of choosing each treatment, using data from a prior DCE. Following pilot testing, we conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the agreement between the predicted and final stated preference, as a measure of value concordance. Secondary outcomes including time to completion and usability were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Pilot testing was completed with 10 patients and adjustments were made. We then recruited 29 patients to complete the survey: median age 57, 55% female. The patients were all taking treatment and had well-controlled disease. The predicted treatment agreed with the final treatment chosen by the patient 21/29 times (72%), similar to the expected agreement from the mean of the predicted probabilities (68%). Triple therapy was the predicted treatment 24/29 times (83%) and chosen 20/29 (69%) times. Half of the patients (51%) agreed that completing the choice questions helped them to understand their preferences (38% neutral, 10% disagreed). The tool took an average of 15 minutes to complete, and median usability scores were 55 (system usability scale) indicating "OK" usability.

CONCLUSION

Using a DCE as a value-clarification task within a decision aid is feasible, with promising potential to help nudge patients towards a value-centric decision. Usability testing suggests further modifications are needed prior to implementation, perhaps by having the DCE exercises as an "add-on" to a simpler decision aid.