Effect of upadacitinib on reducing pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: post hoc analysis of three randomised clinical trials

Objective

Evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS).

Methods

Patients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points.

Results

A higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%–60%, 35%–49% and 15%–34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points.

Conclusion

Rapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

POS1047 IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB ON REDUCING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS IN PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NON-BIOLOGIC OR BIOLOGIC DMARDs

Background:

Pain is a dominant symptom of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and pain reduction is a priority for patients (pts) that is often assessed in clinical trials. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor engineered for increased selectivity for JAK1 over JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase2, has demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with active PsA in the SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 studies.1,2

Objectives:

The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) on pain using different assessments through 24 weeks (wks).

Methods:

The SELECT-PsA program enrolled adult pts with active PsA with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 1; NCT03104400) or prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 2; NCT03104374). Concomitant background therapy with ≤2 non-biologic DMARDs was allowed but not required. Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg or UPA 30 mg once daily (QD) or PBO (both studies), or ADA 40 mg every other week (EOW; SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain was assessed as proportion of pts achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, or ≥70% reduction from baseline (BL) in Pt’s global assessment (PGA) of pain numeric rating scale (NRS) score (0–10), proportion of pts achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain (defined as ≥1 point reduction or 15% reduction from BL on a 0–10 NRS)3,4 and change from baseline in pain NRS (0–10) at all time points. In addition, change from BL in BASDAI questions 2 (spinal pain) and 3 (joint pain/swelling) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questions 7 (bodily pain) and 8 (pain interference) at weeks 12 and 24 were assessed. Non-responder imputation was used for binary endpoints and mixed-effects model for repeated measurements for continuous endpoints. The statistical significance defined as P<0.05 was exploratory in nature.

Results:

In both studies, a significantly higher proportion of pts receiving UPA 15 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD vs PBO achieved improvements in most pain endpoints as early as wk 2, and improvements were generally either sustained or increased through wk 24 (nominal P<0.05). A significant improvement with UPA vs PBO was also observed for change from BL in PGA of pain NRS scores over time, as well as in BASDAI spinal pain and joint pain/swelling and SF-36 bodily pain and pain interference at weeks 12 and 24. In SELECT-PsA 1 significantly higher proportions of pts receiving UPA 30 mg QD vs ADA 40 mg EOW achieved improvements in most pain assessments as early as wk 2 which were sustained through wk 24; improvements in several assessments were also significantly greater with UPA 15 mg QD vs ADA 40 mg EOW at wk 24 (nominal P <0.05; Data will be presented).

Conclusion:

In pts with active PsA who had inadequate response to non-biologic or biologic DMARDs, a greater proportion of pts treated with UPA vs PBO achieved rapid, significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in pain across multiple pain assessments. The reductions in pain were sustained over 24 wks.

References:

[1]McInnes I. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(Suppl 1):12-13.

[2]Genovese M.C. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(Suppl 1):139.

[3]Dworkin, R.H. et al. J Pain. 2008;9(2):105-121.

[4]Salaffi F. et al. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–291.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M Hovenden and J Matsuura of ICON plc (North Wales, PA) and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: Celgene Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Gilead, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, anna maniccia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dai Feng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Gilead, and Paradigm.

POS0905 ACHIEVEMENT OF PARTIAL REMISSION AND INACTIVE DISEASE IN UPADACITINIB-TREATED PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS

Background:

Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) response criteria and AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) are both commonly used, rigorous composite indices consisting of components with relevance to patients. Clinically meaningful thresholds for these measures have been defined to reflect partial remission (PR), inactive disease (ID), and low disease activity (LDA).

Objectives:

To study the association of ASAS PR and ordinal ASDAS disease categories (including ASDAS ID, which is the most stringent category of this composite score) in upadacitinib (UPA)-treated patients with AS.

Methods:

In the SELECT-AXIS 1 (NCT03178487) study, biologic DMARD naïve-patients (pts; ≥18 y) with active AS and intolerance/contraindication or inadequate response to ≥2 NSAIDs were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO).1 At wk 14, pts entered an open-label extension (OLE) of UPA 15 mg QD; pts randomized to PBO were switched to UPA. This post hoc analysis assessed the responsiveness of individual ASAS and ASDAS core components among pts who achieved ASAS PR. The association of ASAS PR with achievement of ASDAS ID (ASDAS <1.3), ASDAS LDA (ASDAS <2.1 but ≥1.3) or ASDAS high disease activity (HDA)/very HDA (VHDA) (ASDAS ≥2.1 for HDA/VHDA) was also assessed by measures including Youden index, distance to perfect point, and sensitivity/specificity equality. These evaluations were performed in pts randomized to UPA from baseline (BL; continuous UPA, assessed at wk 14) and those who were randomized to PBO and switched to UPA upon entry in the OLE (PBO to UPA; re-baselined at wk 14 and assessed at wk 32, representing 18 wks of UPA exposure).

Results:

At wk 14, for the continuous UPA group, 16 pts (19%) achieved ASAS PR. At wk 32, following 18 wks of UPA exposure for the PBO-to-UPA group, 28 pts (33%) achieved ASAS PR. Among both groups (continuous UPA and PBO-to-UPA), improvements were seen across all core components (Figure 1). Of the 44 total pts who achieved ASAS PR, 91% achieved either ASDAS ID or LDA. The majority of patients who achieved ASAS PR achieved ASDAS ID in the continuous UPA and PBO-to-UPA groups: 11/16 (69%) and 16/28 (57%), respectively. For the continuous UPA group, the remaining 5 pts who achieved ASAS PR also achieved ASDAS LDA (Table 1). ASAS PR was associated with ASDAS categories in the following manner: the highest rate of ASAS PR was achieved for ASDAS ID followed by ASDAS LDA followed by ASDAS HDA/VHDA. The cutoff of 1.3 (the upper threshold for ASDAS ID) was a better discrimination threshold for ASAS PR than the cutoff of 2.1 (the upper threshold for ASDAS LDA).

Conclusion:

Nineteen percent of pts receiving UPA from BL achieved ASAS PR after 14 wks of treatment, with similar results seen in pts who were originally randomized to PBO and switched to UPA at wk 14. A consistent improvement was seen across all core components of ASAS among those who achieved ASAS PR with UPA treatment. The achievement of ASAS PR was most closely associated with the achievement of ASDAS ID, providing further clarity on the reduction of disease activity in AS pts treated with UPA.

References:

[1]van der Heijde, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.

Table 1.

Association Between ASAS PR and ASDAS Clinical Thresholds (ID/LDA/HDA or VHDA)

ASDAS ID(<1.3)ASDAS LDA(1.3 to <2.1)ASDAS HDA or VHDA(≥2.1)Continuous UPA Groupn=15n=31n=39 ASAS PR Responders (n=16)1150 ASAS PR Non-responders (n=69)42639PBO to UPA Groupn=25n=35n=25 ASAS PR Responders (n=28)1684 ASAS PR Non-responders (n=57)92721

P<0.001 for association of ASAS PR with the ordered ASDAS categories of ID-LDA-HDA, for both Continuous UPA Group and PBO to UPA Group. P-value calculated from Cochran-Armitage trend test for association of ordinal categories.

ASAS, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response criteria; ASDAS, AS Disease Activity Score; HDA, high disease activity; ID, inactive disease; LDA, low disease activity; PBO, placebo; PR, partial remission; UPA, upadacitinib; VHDA, very high disease activity.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by J Urbanik of AbbVie and M Hovenden and J Matsuura of Complete Publication Solutions, LLC (funded by AbbVie).

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Galapagos, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Celgene, Amgen., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Gilead, and Paradigm, anna maniccia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Fabiana Ganz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Alvina Chu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer

POS1207 REAL WORLD POPULATION-BASED ASSESSMENT OF COVID-19 OUTCOMES AMONG RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS USING BIOLOGIC OR SYNTHETIC DMARDs

Background:

While some risk factors for severe COVID have been identified for patients with rheumatic diseases,1 few studies have investigated whether outcomes differ based on the type of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Most existing reports have been limited to individual centers or voluntary reporting registries.2,3

Objectives:

To compare the occurrence of hospitalizations following COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with RA treated with various classes of DMARDs.

Methods:

A cohort of patients with confirmed COVID-19 (ICD10 diagnosis code or positive PCR or antigen test result) were identified within a large US electronic health record (EHR) dataset (Optum, Inc.) during the time period Feb 1, 2020 through Oct 14, 2020. From these, we identified RA patients (ICD10 RA diagnosis code) with treatment (most recent of JAK inhibitor [JAKi], biologic [bDMARD] or conventional synthetic [csDMARD] only) within the 12 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis (i.e., index). The primary outcome was any hospitalization on or within 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models compared users of JAKi’s to non-TNFi bDMARDs and csDMARDs (separately), as well as users of TNFi’s to non-TNFi bDMARDS and csDMARDs (separately), and were adjusted for age, gender, index month and baseline corticosteroid use. Sensitivity analyses included restriction of prevalent treatment use to within 180 days prior to COVID-19 diagnosis and restriction of csDMARDs to a group without hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine.

Results:

The study included 910 RA patients on DMARD treatment who were diagnosed with COVID-19 (mean age ± SD: 61±15, 80% female, 62% white. Of those, 26% (n=240) were hospitalized on or within 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The proportion of patients hospitalized was highest in non-TNFi bDMARD users (37/87; 43%), followed by csDMARDs users (161/581; 28%) and lowest in JAKi (13/68; 19%) and TNFi users (29/174; 17%). In multivariable-adjusted models, no differences in risk of hospitalization were found comparing JAKi users to csDMARD users (aOR=0.71; 95% CI 0.37-1.36) or TNFi users to csDMARD users (aOR=0.67; 95%CI 0.43-1.06). Compared to non-TNFi bDMARD users, JAKi use and TNFi use was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization (JAKi aOR=0.32; 95%CI 0.14-0.71; TNFi aOR=0.34; 95%CI 0.18-0.62). Age and corticosteroid use were positively associated with 30-day hospitalization in all models. Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.

Conclusion:

In this study, roughly a quarter of RA patients with recent DMARD treatment were hospitalized within 30 days after COVID diagnosis. Patients treated with JAKi and TNFi therapies experienced the lowest risk of hospitalization, with risk of hospitalization significantly lower than non-TNFi bDMARDs. However, recent therapy recorded in the EHR may not reflect exposure at time of COVID-19 diagnosis and small sample size per treatment may limit interpretation.

References:

[1]Hyrich KL, Machado PM. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2020;1-2. doi:10.1038/s41584-020-00562-2

[2]Gianfrancesco MA, et al. Lancet Rheumatol 2020;2(5):e250-e253. doi:10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30095-3

[3]Veenstra J, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020;83(6):1696-1703.

Acknowledgements:

Jonathan Johnson of Optum, Inc. provided dataset guidance and conducted data analyses. AbbVie funded this study, contributed to its design, participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Disclosure of Interests:

Lani Wegrzyn Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kevin Winthrop Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, GSK, Roche, Gilead, BMS, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer, Seoyoung Kim Grant/research support from: institutional research grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, BMS for unrelated studies, Yizhou Ye Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Carrie Huisingh Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Whitney Krueger Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, anna maniccia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ryan Kilpatrick Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

POS0435 CHARACTERISTICS AND 6-MONTH OUTCOMES AMONG REAL-WORLD PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS INITIATING UPADACITINIB: ANALYSIS FROM THE CORRONA REGISTRY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials1-3; however, few data are available from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have been treated with UPA in real-world clinical practice.

Objectives:

Describe the characteristics and 6-month outcomes in patients with RA initiating UPA in a real-world setting.

Methods:

We identified adults with RA enrolled in the Corrona RA Registry through October 31, 2020 who initiated UPA during or after August 2019 and had a follow-up visit 6 (±3) months after initiation of UPA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics in all patients initiating UPA who had a 6-month follow-up visit. Outcomes (CDAI, modified HAQ-DI, pain, and fatigue) were described at the 6-month visit for all UPA initiators regardless of UPA use at 6 months and for the subset of patients who continued UPA through the 6-month visit. Patients who discontinued UPA before the 6-month visit were considered non-responders for dichotomous variables and were assigned the value at the time of discontinuation for continuous variables. Mean change from baseline in continuous variables was analyzed with one-sample t tests or one-sample Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in HAQ-DI is defined as an improvement of 0.22 units or more. MCID in CDAI is an improvement of at least 2, 7, and 13 units for patients in low, moderate and severe disease at initiation, respectively. MCID for 100-point VAS is an improvement of ≥10 points. Percentages of patients achieving MCID thresholds were calculated.

Results:

We identified 181 patients who initiated UPA and had a 6-month follow-up visit. Mean±SD age was 58.6±12.1 years, 81% were female. Patients had RA for a mean of 11.5±9.8 years. At UPA initiation, 45% of patients were on monotherapy. Prior use of one or more TNFi and JAKi was 79% and 52%, respectively. Seventy-two percent of patients (n=130) initiated UPA as the third or higher line of therapy. Mean CDAI was 18.7±11.6 and mean HAQ-DI was 1.1±0.8 at initiation. Based on CDAI (n=155), 29%, 52%, and 15% of patients had high, moderate, and low disease activity, respectively; 4.5% were in remission at initiation. At 6 months (n=158), 22%, 39%, and 28% had high, moderate, and low disease activity, respectively; 11% were in remission. Among 138 initiators with valid CDAI measures at initiation and 6 months, mean change in CDAI was –4.8±11.8, P<0.01. At 6 months, 46% (63/138) maintained and 39% (54/138) achieved improvement in any CDAI category. Improvements in other outcomes were significantly different from zero. Improvements >=MCID in CDAI, HAQ-DI, pain, and fatigue were achieved in 36–44% of UPA initiators. Improvements were similar, but larger in the subset of patients (n=122) who continued UPA through the 6-month visit (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Among patients in the Corrona RA Registry, UPA is frequently started in those who failed multiple previous therapies. UPA initiators responded to therapy in the first 6 months with improvements in several disease activity measures including CDAI and HAQ-DI, as well as patient-reported pain and fatigue.

References:

[1]Fleischmann R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1788–800.

[2]Smolen JS. Lancet. 2019;393:2303–11.

[3]Burmester GR. Lancet. 2018;382:2505–12.

Outcomes at 6-month follow-upAll initiators(n=181)Subset remainingon UPA (n=122)nValueanValueaRemission (CDAI <2.8)15818 (11)10512 (11)Low (CDAI >=2.8 and <10)15844 (28)10538 (36)Moderate (CDAI >=10 and <22)15862 (39)10536 (34)High (CDAI >=22)15834 (22)10519 (18)Improvement in any CDAI category13854 (39)8940 (45)Maintenance of CDAI category13863 (46)10539 (44)Mean change in CDAI138–4.8±11.8*89–7.1±12.0* HAQ-DI154–0.1±0.5*101–0.2±0.5* Pain154–9.3±25.1*101–13.5±25.8* Fatigue153–7.6±27.3*100–12.5±27.5*MCID achievement in CDAI13857 (41)8943 (48) HAQ-DI15455 (36)10139 (39) Pain15468 (44)10153 (52) Fatigue15365 (42)10049 (49)

aMean±SD or n (%).

*P<0.01 for improvement significantly different from zero.

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by Corrona, LLC. Corrona has been supported through contracted subscriptions in the last 2 years by AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sun, UCB, and Valeant. The design, study conduct, and financial support for the study were provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Medical writing services were provided by Joann Hettasch of Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., part of Fishawack Health, and funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Joel M Kremer Shareholder of: Corrona, Consultant of: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Employee of: Corrona, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Robert McLean Employee of: Corrona, Taylor Blachley Employee of: Corrona, anna maniccia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dimitrios A Pappas Shareholder of: Corrona, Consultant of: AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Hellas, Employee of: Corrona

Efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis

Objective

To describe the efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Methods

Data were collected from patients in seven tofacitinib studies: six phase III (four RA, two PsA) and one phase II study (AS), and grouped into five analysis populations based on rheumatic disease diagnosis and category of prior inadequate response (IR) to treatment: conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-IR (RA and PsA), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR (RA and PsA), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-IR (AS). Only patients who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo were included. Pain assessments included: Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain, Short-Form Health Survey 36v2 Question (Q)7 and Bodily Pain domain, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Q9 and Q14, EuroQol Five Dimensions Pain/Discomfort dimension and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index Q2 and Q3. Data were reported to month 6 (placebo to month 3) in the RA and PsA populations, and week 12 (tofacitinib and placebo) in the AS population.

Results

Overall, 3330 patients were included in this analysis. In the RA and PsA populations, pain improvements in tofacitinib-treated patients compared with placebo were observed at the earliest time point assessed and at month 3 (maintained to month 6). In the AS population, pain improvements compared with placebo were observed at week 12.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib was associated with rapid and sustained improvements across multiple pain measures in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases.

Comparison of patient and physician perspectives in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results from global physician- and patient-based surveys

Background

In order to better understand the perspectives of patients and physicians regarding the treatment and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we present and compare results from a patient-based and a physician-based survey developed by the RA NarRAtive advisory panel.

Methods

The RA NarRAtive initiative is directed by a global advisory panel of 39 healthcare providers and patient organization leaders from 17 countries. A survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of RA and a physician-based survey, designed by the advisory panel, were fielded online by Harris Poll from September 2014 to April 2016, and from August 2015 to October 2015, respectively.

Results

We present findings from 1805 patients whose RA was primarily managed by a rheumatologist, and 1736 physicians managing patients with RA. Results confirmed that RA carries a substantial disease burden; half of the patients surveyed reported stopping participation in certain activities as a result of their disease. While 90% of physicians were satisfied with their communications with their patients regarding RA treatment, 61% of patients felt uncomfortable raising concerns or fears with their physician. Of the patients providing responses, 52% felt that improved dialogue/discussion would optimize their RA management, and 68% of physicians wished that they and their patients talked more about their RA goals and treatment. Overall, 88% of physicians agreed that patients involved in making treatment decisions tend to be more satisfied with their treatment experience.

Conclusion

The results of these surveys highlight the impact of RA on patients, and a discrepancy between patient and physician views on communication. Further research, focused on improving patient–physician dialogue, shared goal-setting, and treatment planning, is needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-1035-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Safety and maintenance of response for tofacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of pooled data from open-label long-term extension studies

Objective

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. This post hoc analysis evaluated patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy or combination therapy, as well as those who switched from monotherapy to combination therapy (mono→combo) or vice versa (combo→mono) in long-term extension (LTE) studies.

Methods

Data were pooled from open-label LTE studies (ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699; ongoing; data collected 14 January 2016) and NCT00661661) involving patients who participated in qualifying index studies. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 rates, change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4(ESR)), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and DAS28-4(ESR) and CDAI low disease activity and remission. Safety was evaluated over 96 months.

Results

Of the 4967 patients treated, 35.4% initiated tofacitinib monotherapy, 64.6% initiated combination therapy, 2.6% were mono→combo switchers and 7.1% were combo→mono switchers. Patients who switched multiple times were excluded. Of those who initiated monotherapy and combination therapy, 87.8% (1543/1757) and 82.0% (2631/3210), respectively, remained on the same regimen throughout the study; efficacy was maintained. Incidence rates (IRs) for serious adverse events with tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily, respectively, were 9.42 and 8.41 with monotherapy and 8.36 and 10.75 with combination therapy; IRs for discontinuations due to AEs were 7.13 and 6.06 with monotherapy and 7.82 and 8.06 with combination therapy (overlapping CIs). For mono→combo and combo→mono switchers, discontinuations due to AEs were experienced by 0.8% and 0.9%, respectively, within 30 days of switching.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib efficacy as monotherapy or combination therapy was maintained through month 48 and sustained to month 72, with minimal switching of treatment regimens. Safety was consistent over 96 months.

Clinical trial registration

NCT00413699 (Pre-results) and NCT00661661 (Results).