Clinical evaluation of optical spectral transmission imaging for detection of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the performance and factors of influence of optical spectral transmission (OST) imaging as a new technique for measuring joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHOD

OST was performed in 24 RA patients and 37 controls. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences in OST score between RA patients and controls. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC), linear regression and generalized estimating equations analysis were used to assess the discriminative capability of OST and the association of OST score with clinical disease parameters, ultrasound, radiographic features and cardiovascular risk parameters.

RESULTS

Median OST score was higher in RA patients than in controls [16.9 (interquartile range 12.77-19.7) vs 12.11 (10.32-14.93)]. At patient level, OST score was moderately associated with ultrasound [beta 0.38 (95% CI 0.16-0.60), p = 0.001] and clinical disease activity [28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein beta 0.30 (95% CI 0.04- 0.57), p = 0.024] in RA patients. In controls, male sex, high body mass index, and hypertension were associated with higher OST scores, while these associations were absent in RA. At joint level, the area under the ROC curve for OST score, with ultrasound or clinical swelling as reference, ranged from 0.63 to 0.70. Joint-space narrowing and malalignment were associated with higher OST joint scores, and subchondral sclerosis with lower scores.

CONCLUSION

OST provides an objective measure of synovitis and correlates moderately with other examined disease activity assessment tools. Clinical patient characteristics must be considered when interpreting the results.

Male rheumatoid arthritis patients at substantially higher risk for cardiovascular mortality in comparison to women

BACKGROUND

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk for developing cardiovascular diseases. While advice regarding cardiovascular risk screening and management in RA patients has been incorporated in several guidelines in recent years, its implementation and adherence is still poor.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cardiovascular disease risk in new diagnosed RA patients and evaluate whether advice to initiate preventive medical treatment of high risk patients was followed.

METHODS

All patients with a recent diagnosis of RA, aged 40-70 years, were screened between May 2019 and December 2022 for cardiovascular diseases and risk factors within the first year after diagnosis at the outpatient rheumatology clinic, as part of standard care. Screening included a physical examination with blood pressure measurement, and laboratory tests with lipid profile tests. All patients and their general practitioner (GP) received an overview with their cardiovascular risk profile and a calculated 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk. Cardiovascular risk was defined as low (<1%), intermediate (1-5%), high (5-10%) and very high (>10%). The national pharmacy network was consulted to check whether or not patients started preventive medication after screening.

RESULTS

A total of 125 RA patients was included in this study. The mean age was 56 years and 78% was female. Median RA disease duration at screening was 6 months. Six patients (5%) indicated to have been screened before, and used antihypertensive medication. During screening, hypertension was found in 57% of male patients and 43% of female patients and dyslipidemia was found in 36% in male and 32% in female patients. 46% of male patients and 21% of female patients currently smoked. A high or very high 10-year cardiovascular mortality risk was found in 50% of male patients, but in only 4% of female patients. Only 26% of (very) high risk patients started antihypertensive or statin medication after screening.

CONCLUSIONS

An increased cardiovascular disease risk is often present in newly diagnosed RA patients, especially male patients, with a large proportion having undiagnosed and untreated hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Even with structural screening and informing of the patients and GPs, treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in high risk patients remains insufficient. CV risk screening needs to be part of standard care for RA patients, with clear agreement on the responsibilities between primary and secondary care. Awareness of the importance of CVD risk screening needs to improve among both RA patients themselves and the GPs to ultimately reduce the cardiovascular burden of our patients. Obviously, a better collaboration between GPs and rheumatologists is urgently needed to lower the cardiovascular burden of our patients.

Patient perspective on exercise intervention in rheumatoid arthritis with high risk of cardiovascular disease: a pilot qualitative study

The objective of the study was to gain an insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a high cardiovascular disease risk (CVD-RA) when undergoing an exercise intervention aimed at improving their cardiorespiratory fitness. This qualitative study was part of a pilot study, which investigated the effects of an exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with CVD-RA. Six patients were invited to participate in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. We invited patients who completed the exercise intervention as well as patients who withdrew from the exercise intervention. The interviews were analyzed according to the method of thematic analysis. Six patients were interviewed, of whom four patients completed and two patients discontinued the exercise intervention. The mean (SD) age was 58 (9.7) years, the median disease duration was 10 years, and five patients were female. The analyses revealed seven themes that provided insight into perceptions and experiences: (1) ability to understand reasons for actions; (2) the need to be seen; (3) reaching their maximum effort; (4) experiencing their limits; (5) wanting personalized exercise therapy; (6) happy to be physically active; (7) benefits of exercise. Patients perceived that they were able to perform a cardiopulmonary exercise test with maximum effort and achieved the prescribed intensity of the exercise intervention. They also experienced an improvement in their physical activity by incorporating physical activity in their daily live. Overarching principles that re-occurred in the themes were: the need to be viewed as a person and the importance of feeling safe.

Does a short course of etanercept influence disease progression and radiographic changes in patients suspected of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis? Three -years follow- up of a placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the long-term effect of 16 weeks of etanercept treatment on disease activity and radiographic changes in patients with suspected non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).

METHOD

Eighty patients with inflammatory back pain and suspected nr-axSpA, with a Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) ≥ 4, received etanercept (n = 40) 25 mg twice weekly or placebo (n = 40) for 16 weeks. They were followed without treatment restrictions after 24 weeks, for up to 3 years. Comparisons were made between patients who received etanercept or placebo in the first period, and changes in BASDAI, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), function, and radiographic changes in the spine [according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS)] and sacroiliac joints (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index (BASRI).

RESULTS

After 3 years of follow-up, 84% of the patients were diagnosed with SpA, predominantly axSpA. Biological treatment was started after 24 weeks in 30% of patients. Disease activity scores after 3 years did not reveal significant differences between the initial randomization groups in mean BASDAI scores (mean difference 0.9, 95% CI -1.1;0.7, p = 0.6) and ASDAS (mean ASDAS 0.3, 95% CI 0.6;3.1, p = 0.5). BASMI and function scores remained stable over 3 years. No differences in radiographic changes of the sacroiliac joints or spine were observed over 3 years between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A short course of etanercept in patients with suspected nr-axSpA did not affect disease activity, the chance of biological treatment, or radiographic progression after 3 years of follow-up.

Interval prolongation of etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The majority of patients with a rheumatic disease treated with etanercept may be overexposed. Data regarding etanercept tapering are scarce, particularly in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We compared extending the dose interval to continuation of the standard dose and studied the success rate of etanercept discontinuation. Etanercept concentrations were measured throughout the study.

METHOD

160 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), PsA, or AS with sustained minimal disease activity (MDA) were enrolled in this 18-month, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The intervention group doubled the dosing interval at baseline and discontinued etanercept 6 months later. The control group continued the standard dose for 6 months and doubled the dosing-interval thereafter. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients maintaining MDA at 6 month follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months, MDA status was maintained in 47 patients (63%) in the intervention group and 56 (74%) in the control group (p = 0.15), with comparable results in all rheumatic diseases. And median etanercept concentrations decreased from 1.50 µg/mL (interquartile range 1.06- 2.65) to 0.46 µg/mL (0.28-0.92). In total, 40% discontinued etanercept successfully with maintained MDA for at least 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Etanercept tapering can be done without losing efficacy in RA, PsA, and AS patients in sustained MDA. A substantial proportion of patients could stop etanercept for at least 6 months. In many patients, low drug concentrations proved sufficient to control disease activity. However, the risk of minor and major flares is substantial, even in patients continuing standard dosing.

In RA patients without prevalent CVD, incident CVD is mainly associated with traditional risk factors: A 20-year follow-up in the CARRÉ cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To extend our investigation of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to a follow up of more than 20 years, with a special focus on patients without prevalent CVD.

METHODS

The CARRÉ study is an ongoing prospective cohort study on CV endpoints in RA patients. Results were compared to those of a reference cohort (n = 2484) enriched for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Hazard ratios (HR) for RA and DM patients compared to non-RA/-DM controls were calculated with cox proportional hazard models, and adjusted for baseline SCORE1 (estimated 10-year CVD mortality risk based on CV risk factors).

RESULTS

238 RA patients, 117 DM patients and 1282 controls, without prevalent CVD at baseline were included. Analysis of events in these patients shows that after adjustment, no relevant 'RA-specific' risk remains (HR 1.16; 95%CI 0.88 - 1.53), whereas a 'DM-specific' risk is retained (1.73; 1.24 - 2.42). In contrast, adjusted analyses of all cases confirm the presence of an 'RA-specific' risk (1.50; 1.19 - 1.89).

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients without prevalent CVD the increased CVD risk is mainly attributable to increased presence of traditional risk factors. After adjustment for these factors, an increased risk attributable to RA only was thus preferentially seen in the patients with prevalent CVD at baseline. As RA treatment has improved, this data suggests that the 'RA-specific' effect of inflammation is preferentially seen in patients with prevalent CVD. We suggest that with modern (early) treatment of RA, most of the current increased CVD risk is mediated through traditional risk factors.

Elevated Fab glycosylation of anti-hinge antibodies

OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by systemic inflammation and the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), which contain remarkably high levels of Fab glycosylation. Anti-hinge antibodies (AHAs) recognize immunoglobulin G (IgG) hinge neoepitopes exposed following cleavage by inflammation-associated proteases, and are also frequently observed in RA, and at higher levels compared to healthy controls (HCs). Here, we investigated AHA specificity and levels of Fab glycosylation as potential immunological markers for RA.

METHOD

AHA serum levels, specificity, and Fab glycosylation were determined for the IgG_1/4-hinge cleaved by matrix metalloproteinase-3, cathepsin G, pepsin, or IdeS, using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and lectin affinity chromatography, in patients with early active RA (n = 69) and HCs (n = 97).

RESULTS

AHA reactivity was detected for all hinge neoepitopes in both RA patients and HCs. Reactivity against CatG-IgG₁-F(ab´)₂s and pepsin-IgG₄-F(ab´)₂s was more prevalent in RA. Moreover, all AHA responses showed increased Fab glycosylation levels in both RA patients and HCs.

CONCLUSIONS

AHA responses are characterized by elevated levels of Fab glycosylation and highly specific neoepitope recognition, not just in RA patients but also in HCs. These results suggest that extensive Fab glycosylation may develop in response to an inflammatory proteolytic microenvironment, but is not restricted to RA.

The effect of anti-TNF on renal function in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Biologicals, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Impaired renal function is a known predictor of CVD and elevated in ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of anti-TNF on renal function in patients with AS and whether anti-TNF use is safe in AS patients with pre-existing risk factors for renal decline.

METHOD

Biological-naïve consecutive AS patients treated with etanercept or adalimumab were prospectively followed from 2005 to 2014. Renal function was determined by calculation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), estimated with the abbreviated modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) formula. The effect of anti-TNF on eGFR was analyzed using mixed model analysis.

RESULTS

211 AS patients were followed for a median of 156 (36-286) weeks. Overall mixed model analyses showed a significant decrease of eGFR over time (β =  - 0.040, p = 0.000), although this association did not remain significant after adjustment for responding to anti-TNF, alcohol use, disease duration, body mass index (BMI), C-reactive protein (CRP), and disease activity (β =  - 0.018, p = 0.094). However, patients with pre-existing risk factors for renal decline did have a significant change in eGFR over time (β =  - 0.029, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significant change in eGFR over time, although this small decrease was not clinically relevant. This study further demonstrates that anti-TNF does not affect renal function in AS patients with and without existing risk factors for renal decline, which means that use of anti-TNF is safe concerning renal function in patients with AS. Key Points • Previous studies showed that biologicals, such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS). • Impaired renal function is a known predictor of CVD, and also a known concern for many AS patients. • Use of anti-TNF is safe with regard to renal function in patients with AS. • The effect of anti-TNF on CVD in AS patients does not seem to be mediated by changes in renal function.

Who stop telemonitoring disease activity and who adhere: a prospective cohort study of patients with inflammatory arthritis

BACKGROUND

The use of frequent electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePRO's) enables monitoring disease activity at a distance (telemonitoring) in patients with inflammatory arthritis. However, telemonitoring studies report declining long-term adherence to reporting ePRO's, which may oppose the benefits of telemonitoring. Therefore, the objective was to investigate what factors are associated with (non-)adherence to telemonitoring with a weekly ePRO in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) at Reade Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Patients telemonitored their disease activity weekly for 6 months with a modified Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire completed in a smartphone application. The primary outcome was time to dropout, defined as ≥ 4 weeks of consecutively nonresponse. Based on literature and through expert meetings, a predefined set of 13 baseline factors were selected to assess the association with time to dropout through a multivariable Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 220 consecutive patients were included (mean age 54, SD 12; 55% females; 99 RA, 81 PsA, and 40 AS). A total of 141 patients (64%) dropped out, with a median time to dropout of 17 weeks (IQR 9-26). Women had a significant higher chance to dropout over 6 months compared to men (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.36).

CONCLUSION

In the set of investigated factors, women stopped reporting the weekly ePRO sooner than men. Future focus group discussions will be performed to investigate the reasons for dropout, and in specific why women dropped out sooner. Trial registration This trials was prospectively registered at www.trialregister.nl (NL8414).

Favorable effect of a 'second hit' after 13 weeks in early RA non-responders: The Amsterdam COBRA treat-to-target randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of treat-to-target combination therapy with intensification at 13 weeks in early RA.

METHODS

Early RA patients were classified as high- or low-risk based on disease activity and prognostic factors. High-risk patients received COBRA-light (prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, methotrexate (MTX) increasing to 25 mg/week), low-risk patients MTX monotherapy increasing to 25 mg/week. The primary outcome (target) was DAS44 <1.6 or EULAR good response at 26 weeks. At 13 weeks, non-responders were randomized to (open-label) intensification (high-risk: prednisolone 60 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day, addition of sulfasalazine (2 g/day) and hydroxychloroquine (400 mg/day); low-risk: prednisolone 30 mg/day tapered to 7.5 mg/day); or continuation.

RESULTS

High-risk group (n = 150): 110 patients (73%) reached the target at 13 weeks, 9 dropped out. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n = 15) or continuation (n = 16). After 26 weeks, 12 (80%) vs 7 (44%) reached the target (difference: 36%, [95%CI 2%;71%]; p = 0.04). Low-risk group (n = 40): 17 (43%) reached the target. Non-responders were randomized to intensification (n = 8) or continuation (n = 7); 4 vs 3 reached the target.Adverse event rates were higher in the high-risk group, and higher in the intensification subgroup. Serious adverse events were rare. Protocol violations were frequent and mostly led to mitigation of actual treatment intensification.

CONCLUSION

Initial combination therapy was very successful in high-risk RA, and early intensification was beneficial in patients not reaching the strict target. The low-risk group was too small to draw conclusions. In routine practice, adherence to early intensification based on strict targets is difficult.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL4393.

Exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness in rheumatoid arthritis patients with high cardiovascular disease risk: a single-arm pilot study

OBJECTIVE

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with cardiovascular disease risk, it is unknown whether exercises are safe, improve cardiorespiratory fitness and reduce disease-related symptoms and cardiovascular-disease (CVD) risk factors. We aimed to investigate in RA patients with CVD risk: (1) safety of medium to high-intensity aerobic exercises, (2) potential changes of cardiorespiratory fitness and (3) disease activity and CVD risk factors in response to the exercises.

METHODS

Single-arm pilot-exercise intervention study including 26 consecutive patients (21 women) with > 4% 10-year risk of CVD mortality according to the Dutch Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation. Aerobic exercises consisted of two supervised-sessions and five home-sessions per week for 12 weeks. Patients were required to exercise at intensities between 65 and 85% of their maximum heart rate. To assess safety, we recorded exercise related adverse events. Before and after the exercises, cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed with a graded maximal oxygen-uptake exercise test, while disease activity was evaluated via the Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) using the erythrocyte segmentation rate (ESR). Resting blood pressure, ESR and total cholesterol were assessed as CVD risk factors.

RESULTS

Twenty out of 26 patients performed the 12-week exercises without any adverse events. According to patients, withdrawals were unrelated to the exercises. Exercises increased cardiorespiratory fitness (pre: 15.91 vs. post: 18.15 ml.kg^-1 min^-1, p = 0.003) and decreased DAS28 (pre: 2.86 vs. post: 2.47, p = 0.04). No changes were detected in CVD risk factors.

CONCLUSION

A 12-week exercise intervention seems to be safe and improves cardiorespiratory fitness and disease activity in patients with RA with a high risk for cardiovascular diseases. Key Points 1. Rheumatoid arthritis patients with high cardiovascular disease risk were able to perform a maximum exercise test and a 12-week aerobic-based medium-to-high intensity exercise intervention. 2. The exercise intervention improved cardiorespiratory fitness and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients with high cardiovascular disease risk. 3. Cardiorespiratory fitness levels were still low post-exercise intervention (i.e. 18.15 ml.kg-1min-1 compared to the 20.9 ml.kg-1min-1 baseline mean of the RA patients without CVD risk).

POS0512 ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY SEROSTATUS DETERMINES 2-YEAR RETENTION OF IV AND SC ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH RA IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING

Background

A treat-to-target approach for RA management is recommended.1,2 However, up to half of patients discontinue DMARD treatment within 18 months.2 Predictive biomarkers, such as anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and RF, may be useful to stratify patients to the most appropriate treatment. ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice; NCT02109666) and ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) were 2-year, international, observational, prospective, multicenter studies of IV and SC abatacept, respectively, for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3,4 Higher retention has been previously reported in patients with double ACPA/RF seropositive RA compared with double ACPA/RF seronegative RA.3,4

Objectives

To assess the independent effect of ACPA or RF single seropositivity on abatacept retention in patients with RA receiving abatacept in a post hoc analysis of ACTION and ASCORE.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included patients aged ≥ 18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who initiated IV (body weight–adjusted dosing) or SC (125 mg once weekly) abatacept.3,4 Patients were stratified by baseline ACPA/RF status: ACPA+/RF− (ACPA+ only), ACPA/RF double positive (+/+), ACPA−/RF+ (RF+ only), and ACPA/RF double negative (−/−). Abatacept retention rate at 2 years was estimated by Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis.

Results

Patients with ACPA/RF serostatus data from the ACTION and ASCORE studies (N = 1679 and N = 1748, respectively) were evaluated. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were similar across studies and serostatus groups (Table 1). In patients with ACPA+ only RA, abatacept retention rates were similar to the +/+ group and greater than the RF+ only and −/− groups (Figure 1). In ASCORE (Figure 1A), retention rates were significantly higher in ACPA+ only and +/+ groups when compared with the −/− group. In contrast, retention rates for patients with RF+ only RA were not significantly different vs −/− patients. Results were similar in ACTION, although the higher retention in the ACPA+ group did not reach statistical significance (Figure 1B).

Table 1.

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics by ACPA/RF status for the ASCORE and ACTION studies

ASCORE+/+RF+ onlyACPA+ only−/−(n = 1079)(n = 142)(n = 184)(n = 343)Age, years57.1 (12.8)58.2 (11.8)57.4 (13.5)57.8 (13.9)DAS28 (CRP)4.7 (1.2)4.6 (1.1)4.4 (1.0)4.8 (1.2)CDAI26.6 (12.5)25.8 (12.0)23.6 (10.9)28.2 (13.2)SDAI28.1 (13.0)27.2 (12.4)24.4 (10.8)29.7 (13.9)ACTION+/+RF+ onlyACPA+ only−/−(n = 1028)(n = 161)(n = 98)(n = 392)Age, years58.2 (12.0)58.4 (13.4)58.5 (14.0)57.0 (13.3)DAS28 (CRP)4.9 (1.1)5.0 (1.1)4.9 (1.0)5.0 (1.1)CDAI28.7 (12.2)29.2 (12.4)28.7 (11.5)30.1 (12.9)SDAI30.4 (13.1)31.2 (13.4)29.8 (11.5)31.7 (13.4)

Data are mean (SD). Patients with missing data for baseline ACPA/RF status are excluded.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of the real-world ACTION and ASCORE studies, ACPA positivity was associated with an increased likelihood of retention over 2 years. Patients with ACPA+ only RA were equally as likely to be retained on abatacept as patients with ACPA/RF double positivity. In contrast, patients with RF+ only RA were less likely to be retained on abatacept over 2 years. These findings suggest that ACPA positivity played a more important role than RF positivity in abatacept retention. The higher retention seen in patients with ACPA+ only vs RF+ only disease demonstrates the key role of ACPA in RA and supports the importance of precision medicine in treating patients.

References

[1]Fraenkel L, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021;73:924–39.

[2]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–99.

[3]Alten R, et al. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1413–24.

[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80(suppl 1):OP0180.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Study management provided by Syneos (CRO).

Disclosure of Interests

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Peter Peichl Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Sanofi; IMIDomics (executive role), Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: Amgen, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Bettina Bannert Speakers bureau: Novartis Pharma Schweiz AG, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb.

POS0107 ACPA POSITIVITY DETERMINES REMISSION IN PATIENTS WITH RA TREATED WITH IV AND SC ABATACEPT: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE REAL-WORLD OBSERVATIONAL ACTION AND ASCORE STUDIES

Background

The goal of treatment for RA is achieving low disease activity and/or remission1,2; however, disease course and management can be complicated by additional factors that may be influenced by serostatus. Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and RF contribute to a more severe RA disease pattern3 and may be useful in predicting response to treatment.4 ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice; NCT02109666) and ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) were 2-year, international, observational, prospective, multicenter studies of IV and SC abatacept, respectively, for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.4,5 Previous analyses have shown that ACPA/RF double-positive serostatus was associated with better treatment outcomes compared with ACPA/RF double-negative serostatus.4–6

Objectives

To assess the independent effect of ACPA or RF single seropositivity among patients with RA on achieving remission after treatment with abatacept for 2 years, and to compare outcomes among patients with single versus double serostatus.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included patients from ACTION and ASCORE who initiated IV (body weight–adjusted dosing) or SC abatacept (125 mg once weekly), respectively. Patients were stratified by baseline ACPA/RF status: ACPA+/RF− (ACPA+ only), ACPA/RF double positive (+/+), ACPA−/RF+ (RF+ only), and ACPA/RF double negative (−/−). DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission rates (defined as < 2.6 and 0–2.8, respectively) at 2 years for patients who were ACPA+ or RF+ only at baseline were assessed and compared with those who were +/+ and −/−. Patients with missing baseline ACPA/RF status were excluded. Last observation carried forward efficacy analyses were used to impute missing values.

Results

This analysis included 1679 patients from ACTION (ACPA+ only, n = 98; +/+, n = 1028; RF+ only, n = 161; and −/−, n = 392) and 1748 patients from ASCORE (ACPA+ only, n = 184; +/+, n = 1079; RF+ only, n = 142; and −/−, n = 343). Across studies and serogroups, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar (data not shown). In both ACTION and ASCORE, a higher proportion of patients who were only ACPA+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were only RF+ (Figure 1). Additionally, a similar proportion of patients who were only ACPA+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were +/+. In contrast, a lower proportion of patients who were only RF+ achieved DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years compared with patients who were +/+.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of real-world data from ACTION and ASCORE, ACPA positivity was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving DAS28 (CRP) and CDAI remission at 2 years. Patients who were ACPA+ only were as likely to achieve remission as +/+ patients, suggesting that RF serostatus had less influence than ACPA serostatus on remission status at 2 years. In line with this, patients who were RF+ only were less likely to achieve remission at 2 years. This is the first large, real-world study to show that ACPA positivity plays a more important role than RF positivity in achieving remission whilst on abatacept. These results highlight the importance of assessing baseline ACPA status when considering treatment options for patients with RA.

References

[1]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–99.

[2]Fraenkel L, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021;73:924–39.

[3]Katchamart, W, et al. Rheumatol Int 2015;35:1693–9.

[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80(suppl 1):OP0180.

[5]Alten R, et al. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1413–24.

[6]Alten R, et al. RMD Open 2017;3:e000345.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rachel Rankin, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Study management provided by Syneos (CRO).

Disclosure of Interests

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, UCB, Peter Peichl Speakers bureau: Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Sanofi; IMIDomics (executive role), Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis - Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: Amgen, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

AB0166 PROTOCOL VIOLATIONS IN AN OPEN, RANDOMIZED, TRIAL IN EARLY RA PATIENTS: POTENTIAL IMPACT OF SHARED DECISION MAKING

Background

Modern trials in RA often have a strict protocolized treat-to-target design, whereas in daily practice shared decision making is the preferred way to manage treatment.

Objectives

To document the protocol violations in an early RA trial that illustrate potential conflicts between these strategies.

Methods

In the COBRA treat-to-target trial, treatment-naive early RA patients were classified into a low- and high-risk group, and treated according to two different protocols. Treatment target was minimal disease activity (DAS44 <1.6) or EULAR good response. Non-responders at 13 weeks were randomized to treatment intensification or continuation, with as primary endpoint the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target at 26 weeks.

Results

In total 190 patients were included. High-risk patients (n=150) were initially treated with COBRA-light (30 mg/day oral prednisolone, tapered in 8 weeks to 7.5 mg/day, and MTX increasing to 25 mg/week): 110 (73%) patients reached the treatment target at 13 weeks. The 31 non-responders were randomized to treatment intensification (n=15) or treatment continuation (n=16) for weeks 14 to 26. Intensification comprised 60 mg/day prednisolone, tapered in 6 weeks to 7.5 mg/day, and addition of sulfasalazine 2000 mg/day and hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/day (COBRA-plus).

The low-risk group (n=40) was treated with MTX monotherapy increasing to 25 mg/week: only 20 (50%) reached the target at week 13. The 15 non-responders were randomized to treatment intensification with a COBRA-light oral pulse of prednisolone (n=8) or continuation (n=7).

Over the whole study period 79 of 190 patients (42%) had a protocol violation. In the first 13 weeks, 27 (18%) high-risk and 8 (20%) low-risk patients had a protocol violation. In the responders at week 13, 15 (14%) high-risk and 3 (18%) low-risk patients had a protocol violation in week 14-26. In the high-risk non-responders, 18 of 31 had a protocol violation (58%) after randomization at 13 weeks, 11 in the intensification group and 7 in the continuation group (Table). Remarkably, increased intensification of therapy was only found in the continuation group (3 patients); decreased intensification was mainly found in the intensification group (11 patients, vs 3 patients in the continuation group). In the low-risk non-responders, violations occurred in 8 out of 15 (53%) patients after randomization, 4 in both groups.

Table

Protocol treatment violations after randomization of non-responders at week 13 by risk group.

High-riskLow-riskContinuation (16)Intensification (15)Continuation(7)Intensification (8)Week 14-26Number of violations71144Increased intensity Rheumatologist3 Other physician1Decreased intensity AEs MTX11 No MTX due to AEs1 Rheumatologist131 Rheumatologist, patient17 Patient12Mixed (increase + decrease) AEs MTX, rheumatologist1 Rheumatologist, patient11

Violations are categorized by direction of intensification and by reason/initiator.

AE=adverse event; MTX=methotrexate.

Conclusion

In this study almost half of the patients had a protocol violation. The high frequency is most likely related to the open design of the trial, the risk of adverse effects through intensification with high dose prednisolone and other DMARDs, the randomization phase, and, last but not least, by the shared decision making. Shared decision making by physician and patient may jeopardizes protocol adherence in trials with an open treat-to-target design.

Acknowledgements

We have received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer.

Disclosure of Interests

Linda Hartman: None declared, Linda A. Rasch: None declared, S.A. Turk: None declared, Marieke ter Wee: None declared, Pit J. S. M. Kerstens: None declared, Conny J. van der Laken: None declared, Michael T Nurmohamed: None declared, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg: None declared, Lilian H. D. van Tuyl: None declared, Alexandre Voskuyl: None declared, Maarten Boers Consultant of: Novartis, WIllem Lems Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Galapagos, Lilly, Amgen, UCB, Consultant of: Pfizer, Galapagos, Lilly, Amgen, UCB

The RAPID3 questionnaire as a screening tool to reduce the number of outpatient clinic visits: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Treat-to-target strategies require frequent on-site evaluations of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), burdening patients and caregivers. However, this frequency may not be required in patients in a stable low disease activity state. The Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a reliable tool to detect such states in groups but has not been tested to reduce the frequency of on-site evaluations in individual patient care. In Reade, an outpatient rheumatology clinic, patients can complete the questionnaire online prior to consultation, and the results are directly fed into the electronic patient record. Focusing on low disease activity, we retrospectively studied the test characteristics of RAPID3 and its agreement with the DAS28 in our database of routine patient care.

Objective

To assess the test characteristics and agreement between de DAS28 and the RAPID3 in patients with RA, with a focus on the low disease activity categories.

Methods

We performed a retrospective database study with available clinical data collected as part of usual care from the electronic medical record at Reade Amsterdam. The dataset comprised RAPID3 assessments followed by a DAS28 within 2 weeks, obtained between June 2014 and March 2021. We dichotomized the disease activity categories for both the RAPID3 and DAS28 into low (remission and low disease activity) and high (moderate and high disease activity). With cutoff values of 2.0 for RAPID3 and 3.2 for DAS28, we calculated test characteristics and agreement (Cohen’s kappa).

Results

A total of 5009 combined RAPID3 and DAS28 measurements were done at Reade in 1681 unique RA patients. The mean age was 60 years, and 76% of patients were female with a median disease duration of 4 years. Agreement was considered fair (kappa = 0.26). In total, 1426 (28%) of the RAPID3 measurements were classified as low and could be potentially targeted to skip their consultations. The sensitivity to detect low disease activity was 0.39, specificity was 0.93, and the positive predictive value was 0.92.

Conclusion

We showed that when the RAPID3 classifies a patient into low disease activity state, the accuracy is 92%. Of all consultations, 28% could possibly be postponed following the screening with RAPID3.

Disease activity in women with ankylosing spondylitis remains higher under Tumour Necrosis Factor inhibitor treatment than in men: a five-year observational study

OBJECTIVE

To assess sex differences in response, level of disease activity, and drug survival in tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients.

METHOD

Consecutive AS patients, fulfilling the modified New York criteria, were included in a prospective cohort study at initiation of the first TNFi and followed until this medication was stopped (drug survival). Disease activity scores [AS Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP), Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and CRP] were measured at 3, 6, and 12 months, and every subsequent year, up to 5 years. The response was defined by the ASDAS-CRP response criteria (clinically important improvement: ASDAS-CRP decrease ≥ 1.1). Analyses included regression methods for repeated measurements and survival analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 356 patients were included (34% women, mean ± sd age 46 ± 12 years), with a median disease duration of 12 (interquartile range 6;20) years. Women were less likely than men to achieve a clinically important response after 6 months of TNFi treatment (47% vs 64%; relative risk 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1;1.9, p = 0.02], despite a lack of sex differences in mean ASDAS-CRP levels over 5 year follow-up. Adjusted models for BASDAI over 5 years showed that women had a 0.6 point higher BASDAI score than men (β = 0.6 0.1;1.1 <0.02). Numerically, more women than men discontinued treatment over a period of 5 years (hazard ratio = 1.5, 95% CI 0.9;2.5, p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Female AS patients show a lower response to TNFi and a higher disease activity compared to men.

Cardiorespiratory fitness and physical activity in people who have rheumatoid arthritis at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study

Lower cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and physical activity (PA) associate with higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, but the relationship between CRF and PA in people who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at an increased CVD risk (CVD-RA) is not known. The objectives of this study were to determine the levels of CRF and PA in people who have CVD-RA and to investigate the association of CRF with PA in people who have CVD-RA. A total of 24 consecutive patients (19 women) with CVD-RA (> 4% for 10-year risk of fatal CVD development as calculated using the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation)-were included in the study. CRF was assessed with a graded maximal exercise test determining maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max). PA was assessed with an accelerometer to determine the amount of step count, sedentary, light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) minutes per day. Mean age of patients was 65.3 ± 8.3 years. CRF mean values were 16.3 ± 1.2 ml·kg^-1 min^-1, mean step count per day was 6033 ± 2256, and the mean MVPA time was 16.7 min per day. Significant positive associations were found for CRF with step count (B = 0.001, P = 0.01) and MVPA time (B = 0.15, P = 0.02); a negative association was found for CRF with sedentary time (B =  - 0.02, P = 0.03). CRF is low and is associated with step count, sedentary time and MVPA time in people who have RA at an increased CVD risk.

Long-term effects on bone mineral density after four years of treatment with two intensive combination strategies, including initially high-dose prednisolone, in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: the COBRA-light trial

In this study, no difference in bone loss was observed between patients with early RA initially treated with COmbinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis (COBRA) (including initially 60 mg/day prednisolone) and patients treated with COBRA-light (including initially 30 mg/day prednisolone) during 4-year observation.

PURPOSE

To assess changes in bone mineral density (BMD) after 4 years in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initially treated with COBRA-light or COBRA therapy.

METHODS

In a 1 year, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial, patients were assigned to COBRA-light (methotrexate 25 mg/week plus initially prednisolone 30 mg/day) or COBRA (methotrexate 7.5 mg/week, sulfasalazine 2 g/day plus initially prednisolone 60 mg/day) therapy. After 1 year, antirheumatic treatment was at the discretion of treating rheumatologists. BMD was measured at baseline and after 1, 2 and 4 years at hips and lumbar spine with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD changes between treatment strategies on average over time were compared with GEE analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 155 out of 162 patients could be analysed: 68% were female with a mean age of 52 (SD 13) years. Both COBRA-light and COBRA therapy showed declines in BMD at the total hip of -3.3% and -1.7%, respectively (p = 0.12), and the femoral neck, -3.7% and -3.0%, respectively (p = 0.95). At the lumbar spine, both treatment groups showed minor decline in BMD over 4 years: -0.5% and -1.0%, respectively (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

In a treat-to-target design in early RA, over 4 years, no differences between groups were found in change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck and the lumbar spine. At the hip, bone loss was around 3% in both groups, while mild bone loss was observed at lumbar spine, both in patients starting prednisolone 60 and 30 mg/day. These data suggest that the well-known negative effects of prednisolone can be modulated by modern treatment of RA.

Disease activity scores in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis

We would like to thank our colleagues for their comments on our paper "Is treatment with suspected non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis effective? Six-month results of a placebo-controlled trial with etanercept".

POS0447 PHYSICAL FUNCTION IN PATIENTS WITH RA, STRATIFIED BY SEROSTATUS AND TREATMENT LINE, FOLLOWING SC ABATACEPT: POST HOC ANALYSIS OF AN OBSERVATIONAL, 2-YEAR STUDY CONDUCTED IN ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE (ASCORE)

Background:

RA is characterised by the production of autoantibodies, including RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs).1 Seropositive disease is associated with poorer prognosis in patients with RA,2 and response to different treatments has been shown to vary based on ACPA status.3 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA.4

Objectives:

This post hoc analysis of the ASCORE study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, assessed using HAQ-DI, by RF/ACPA serostatus and treatment line over 24 months of treatment with abatacept.

Methods:

Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI score at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in response to treatment with abatacept stratified by baseline serostatus (RF/ACPA double positive [+/+]; RF/ACPA single positive [+/−; RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+] or RF/ACPA double negative [–/–]) and by line of therapy (all patients, patients receiving abatacept as a first-line bDMARD or as a ≥ second-line bDMARD [data not shown], and those receiving abatacept following 1 [data not shown] or ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Estimates of mean difference with 95% CIs between patients with different serostatus were calculated using a t-test for all patients and within different lines of therapy.

Results:

Among 2892 eligible patients in ASCORE, 1748 patients with RF/ACPA status available at baseline were included in this analysis (1079 +/+, 326 +/– and 343 –/–). Of these, 791 patients received abatacept as a first-line bDMARD therapy and 957 as a ≥ second-line bDMARD therapy (505 patients had received ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Among all patients, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI score at 6 months was greater for patients with +/+ RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.2 [–0.3, –0.0]; p=0.0068) or +/– RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.2 [–0.3, –0.0]; p=0.0315) versus those with –/– RA at baseline (Figure 1). Similarly, mean change (95% CI) in HAQ-DI score at 6 months was greater for patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA among those receiving abatacept as first-line therapy (–0.2 [–0.4, –0.0]; p=0.0407) or following treatment with ≥2 bDMARDs (–0.3 [–0.5, –0.0]; p=0.0265) (Figure 1). Among patients treated with abatacept following ≥2 prior bDMARDs, mean change in HAQ-DI score was higher among patients with +/– RA versus –/– RA at 18 months (data not shown) and 24 months (Figure 1). No other significant differences were observed by serostatus or line of therapy at any other time points.

Conclusion:

Patients with RA who were RF+/ACPA+ at baseline showed an enhanced initial response to abatacept compared with those who were RF–/ACPA–. Over 24 months of treatment in this real-world setting, abatacept was equally effective as a first- or ≥ second-line therapy.

References:

[1]Scott DL, et al. Lancet 2010;376:1094–1108.

[2]Hecht C, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:2151–2156.

[3]Harrold LR, et al. J Rheumatol 2018;45:32–39.

[4]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

OP0180 IMPACT OF RF AND ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY SEROSTATUS ON 2-YEAR RETENTION OF ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH RA

Background:

Up to 50% of patients with RA discontinue DMARD treatment within 18 months.1 However, up to 20% of patients who fail multiple treatments may have a good treatment response to another therapy.1 Predictive biomarkers, such as RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), may be useful to stratify patients with RA to the most appropriate treatment.1 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.2

Objectives:

To determine if RF/ACPA serostatus and treatment line impact abatacept retention in patients with RA in a post hoc analysis of ASCORE.

Methods:

Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed abatacept retention rate at 2 years in a subset of patients with RF/ACPA serostatus data (n=1748) from the ASCORE study (N=2892; as observed). Baseline (BL) serostatus groups examined by treatment line were: RF/ACPA double positive (+/+) RA, RF/ACPA single positive (RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+) RA (data not shown) and RF/ACPA double negative (–/–) RA. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses were used to assess change from BL and measures of disease remission (DAS28 [CRP] <2.6, CDAI ≤2.8, and SDAI ≤3.3) in patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA.

Results:

BL demographic and disease characteristics were similar across serostatus groups and treatment lines (Table 1). Mean age was 57.1 and 57.8 years for +/+ RA and –/– RA, respectively. Mean DAS28 (CRP) was 4.7 and 4.8 for +/+ RA and –/– RA, respectively. In patients with +/+ RA, abatacept retention was greater when given as first-line treatment (57% vs 48% when given as ≥ second-line) (Figure 1). Retention was similar in patients with –/– RA regardless of treatment line. After 2 years, mean (SE) change from BL (LOCF) in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.41 (0.06) and –0.97 (0.09) for patients with +/+ and –/– RA, respectively. For patients with +/+ RA, mean (SE) change from BL in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.62 (0.08) for those in whom abatacept was first-line and –1.19 (0.08) for those in whom abatacept was ≥ second-line. For patients with –/– RA, mean (SE) change from BL in DAS28 (CRP) was –1.03 (0.13) for those in whom abatacept was first-line and –0.93 (0.12) for those in whom abatacept was ≥ second-line. Remission rates (LOCF) were significantly (p<0.0001) higher in patients with +/+ RA vs –/– RA respectively: DAS28 (CRP) 38.4% (n=393) versus 19.3% (n=62); CDAI 50.6% (n=513) versus 33.0% (n=107); and SDAI 49.5% (n=497) versus 32.5% (n=102).

Table 1.

BL demographics and disease characteristics by RF/ACPA status

+/+ RA(n=1079)–/– RA(n=343)First-line (n=511)≥ second-line (n=568)First-line(n=140)≥ second-line(n=203)Age57.1 (13.4)57.1 (12.2)59.5 (14.7)56.6 (13.2)DAS28 (CRP)4.7 (1.2)4.7 (1.2)4.8 (1.1)4.8 (1.2)CDAI26.6 (12.5)26.6 (12.4)27.7 (12.5)28.6 (13.8)SDAI28.1 (13.1)28.1 (12.9)29.1 (12.9)30.2 (14.7)

Data are mean (SD). Patients with missing data for BL RF/ACPA status are excluded.

ACPA=anti-citrullinated protein antibody; BL=baseline.

Conclusion:

In this real-world analysis, patients with +/+ RA treated with first-line abatacept had higher retention than patients receiving abatacept as a ≥ second-line therapy. Remission rates on abatacept were higher in patients with +/+ RA versus –/– RA. These results support early treatment with abatacept and highlight the importance of further evaluating precision medicine approaches in RA.

References:

[1]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–699.

[2]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Lindsay Craik at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier 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, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS0599 DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH RA BY SEROSTATUS AND TREATMENT LINE, FOLLOWING TREATMENT WITH ABATACEPT: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Background:

RF and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are associated with a severe and aggressive disease course in patients with RA.1 Abatacept is a selective co-stimulation modulator for the treatment of RA.2 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for the treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3

Objectives:

To determine if serostatus and treatment line impacted disease activity in patients enrolled in the ASCORE study.

Methods:

Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: biologic (b)DMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis assessed the mean change in disease activity (CDAI, SDAI and DAS28 [ESR]) from baseline (BL) at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in response to treatment with abatacept. Patients were stratified by BL serostatus (all patients, RF/ACPA double positive [+/+] RA; RF/ACPA single positive [+/–; RF+/ACPA– or RF–/ACPA+] RA and RF/ACPA double negative [–/–] RA) and by line of therapy (all patients, patients receiving abatacept as a first-line or ≥ second-line therapy and those receiving abatacept following 1 or ≥2 prior bDMARDs). Overall patient data, as well as data for patients who were +/– or those who had 1 or ≥2 previous bDMARDs, are not shown. Estimates of mean difference are from t-test.

Results:

Among 2892 eligible patients in ASCORE, 1748 patients with RF/ACPA status available at BL were included in this analysis (1079 +/+ RA, 326 +/− RA and 343 −/− RA). After 6 months, patients with +/+ RA on first-line abatacept therapy had better improvements in CDAI and SDAI scores from BL than patients on ≥ second-line abatacept therapy (mean difference [95% CI]: –3.4 [–5.6, –1.1]; p=0.0032 and –3.9 [–6.5, –1.3]; p=0.0035, respectively); better improvements in SDAI were also seen after 12 months (mean difference [95% CI]: –3.5 [–6.5, –0.5]; p=0.0207). Changes in CDAI and SDAI scores were comparable after 18 and 24 months. At 6 and 12 months, patients with +/+ RA on first-line therapy had better improvements from BL in DAS28 (ESR) than those on ≥ second-line therapy (mean differences [95% CI]: –0.5 [–0.8, –0.2]; p=0.0002 and –0.4 [–0.7, –0.0]; p=0.0317, respectively); changes were comparable at 18 and 24 months (Figure 1). For patients on ≥ second-line therapy, at 18 months those with +/+ RA had better improvements from BL in DAS28 (ESR) than those with –/– RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.7 [–1.2, –0.1]; p=0.0232). For patients not stratified by line of therapy, changes in DAS28 (ESR) were comparable between the +/+ and –/– RA subgroups over time, with the exception of 6 months where patients with –/– RA had better improvements from BL compared with patients with +/+ RA (mean difference [95% CI]: –0.3 [–0.6, –0.0]; p=0.0495).

Conclusion:

In this real-world, post hoc analysis, patients with +/+ RA who received abatacept as a first-line therapy had greater early improvements in disease activity compared with patients who received abatacept as a ≥ second-line therapy. Improvements in disease activity at 24 months were comparable between patients who were +/+ and those who were –/–. Larger studies are needed to further corroborate these findings.

References:

[1]Katchamart W, et al. Rheumatol Int 2015;35:1693–1699.

[2]Malmström V, et al. Nat Rev Immunol 2017;17:60–75.

[3]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(Suppl 2):A1639.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rachel Rankin, PhD, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

AB0207 ANALYSIS OF ABATACEPT TREATMENT RETENTION AND EFFICACY ACCORDING TO DISEASE DURATION AND TREATMENT LINE IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING

Background:

Longer disease duration and greater number of prior DMARDs have been associated with lower treatment efficacy in patients with RA.1 Abatacept is a biologic (b)DMARD for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA and is available in SC formulation, which may offer convenience benefits with efficacy similar to IV administration.2 ASCORE (Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine Clinical PracticE; NCT02090556) was a 2-year, observational, prospective, multicentre study of SC abatacept for treatment of RA in routine clinical practice.3

Objectives:

This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine if retention and efficacy of abatacept were impacted by disease duration and/or treatment line.

Methods:

Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with active moderate-to-severe RA (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria) who were IV abatacept-naive and initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly, were enrolled into two cohorts: bDMARD-naive patients and those with ≥1 prior bDMARD treatment failure. This post hoc analysis evaluated abatacept retention using Kaplan-Meier estimates, as well as disease activity scores (DAS28 [ESR]), CDAI and SDAI in patients with disease duration of ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 or >10 years, and in patients taking abatacept as first-line or ≥ second-line treatment.

Results:

Table 1 shows baseline (BL) characteristics. Mean age increased with disease duration; other characteristics were comparable across groups. Retention proportions (95% CIs) at Month 24 were 0.50 (0.4, 0.5), 0.47 (0.4, 0.5), 0.51 (0.5, 0.5) and 0.46 (0.4, 0.5) in the ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively. Proportion of patients (95% CI) with ≤2 years’ duration retaining treatment at Month 24 were 0.51 (0.4, 0.6) among those using abatacept as first-line treatment and 0.44 (0.3, 0.6) among those using abatacept as a ≥ second-line treatment (Figure 1). Proportions (95% CI) at Month 24 were 0.51 (0.5, 0.6), 0.57 (0.5, 0.6) and 0.52 (0.5, 0.6) in first-line patients and 0.43 (0.4, 0.5), 0.48 (0.4, 0.5) and 0.44 (0.4, 0.5) in ≥ second-line patients in the 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively. Mean (SE) changes from BL in DAS28 (ESR) at Month 24 were –2.12 (0.205), –1.86 (0.151), –2.07 (0.140) and –2.05 (0.115) in the ≤2, 3–5, 6–10 and >10 years’ duration groups, respectively; respective mean (SE) changes in CDAI were –18.74 (1.604), –15.60 (1.099), –18.50 (1.038) and –17.68 (0.850); and respective mean (SE) changes in SDAI were –19.10 (1.873), –15.72 (1.345), –19.54 (1.103) and –17.07 (0.939).

Conclusion:

In this post hoc analysis of the real-world ASCORE trial, patients with RA receiving abatacept in clinical practice as first-line therapy had better retention versus those receiving it as a ≥ second-line treatment, regardless of disease duration at BL. Retention rates were similar across disease duration subgroups. Improvements in disease activity were seen in all duration subgroups, without consistently greater or lesser improvement seen with longer disease duration.

References:

[1]Aletaha D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1609–1615.

[2]Genovese MC, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2011;63:2854–2864.

[3]Alten R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78(suppl 2):A1639.

Table 1.

BL characteristics (n=2872)

RA disease duration, years≤2(n=338)3–5(n=655)6–10(n=686)>10(n=1193)Age, years n3386556861193 Mean (SD)55.2 (12.8)55.6 (12.7)56.9 (13.0)59.9 (12.2)Weight, kg n3276296651150 Mean (SD)75.3 (18.1)76.4 (19.0)74.7 (17.4)72.9 (16.0)DAS28 (ESR) n247439441743 Mean (SD)5.2 (1.3)4.9 (1.3)5 (1.2)5.1 (1.3)DAS28 (CRP) n267460467799 Mean (SD)4.7 (1.2)4.6 (1.2)4.7 (1.1)4.7 (1.2)CDAI n269477474805 Mean (SD)26.9 (12.7)25.3 (12.2)26.8 (12.4)26.6 (12.2)SDAI n255448445749 Mean (SD)28.3 (13.3)26.8 (12.9)27.9 (12.6)28.0 (12.7)RF status, n (%) RF+159 (47.0)342 (52.2)345 (50.3)597 (50.0) RF–103 (30.5)152 (23.2)158 (23.0)215 (18.0)Anti-CCP status, n (%) Anti-CCP+165 (48.8)332 (50.7)333 (48.5)516 (43.3) Anti-CCP–89 (26.3)126 (19.2)137 (20.0)175 (14.7)

Patients with missing duration of disease are excluded.

CCP=cyclic citrullinated peptide.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rob Coover, MPH, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rieke Alten Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Yusuf Patel: None declared, Raimón Sanmartí Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gebro, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sara Marsal Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, M.T. Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Hedley Griffiths Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Peter Peichl: None declared, Bettina Bannert: None declared, Adrian Forster: None declared, Melanie Chartier Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Christiane Rauch Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

Coexistent subclinical hypothyroidism is associated with an increased risk of new cardiovascular events in rheumatoid arthritis: an explorative study

Objective: Autoimmune thyroid disease often coexists with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk. However, studies in RA patients are scarce. Our aim was to investigate whether autoimmune thyroid disease increases the risk of new cardiovascular disease (CVD) in RA.Method: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and serum free thyroxine (FT4) were assessed in 323 RA patients participating in an ongoing prospective cohort study designed to assess CV risk factors, morbidity, and mortality. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for new CVD and adjusted for age, gender, smoking, prevalent CVD, thyroxine replacement therapy, and RA duration.Results: Of the 323 participants, 65.3% were female, and mean ± sd age was 63 ± 7 years. At baseline, 8.1% were hypothyroid (n = 26, 16 clinical, 10 subclinical), 6.8% hyperthyroid (n = 22, 13 clinical, 9 subclinical), and 85.1% (n = 275) euthyroid. A new CV event developed in 94 patients (29.1%) during follow-up. Compared to euthyroid patients, the HR adjusted for age, gender, and prevalent CVD was 2.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-7.09; p = 0.026] for subclinical hypothyroidism. Further adjustment for smoking, thyroxine replacement therapy, and RA duration resulted in an HR of 3.0 (95% CI 1.19-7.54; p = 0.02) for CV events in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism.Conclusion: There was no difference in CVD between RA patients with hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism versus euthyroid patients. Coexistence of subclinical hypothyroidism with RA is associated with a higher occurrence of new CV events. Treatment trials are needed to determine whether thyroxine supplementation can further improve CV outcome in these patients.

Accuracy of an algorithm to identify rheumatoid arthritis in the Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam population: a validation study

Objective: In view of global ageing and the scarcity of knowledge about disease determinants in older individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an algorithm with optimal diagnostic accuracy was developed to identify RA patients in the Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam (LASA).Method: Four case ascertainment algorithms were constructed and assessed for validity in LASA, an ongoing cohort study (≥ 55 years) representing the general older population of the Netherlands. Data sources used to identify the diagnosis RA were: self-reported morbidity, specialist diagnosis, and medication. A validation subsample of LASA participants was taken to verify RA diagnosis by a standard procedure using a checklist.Results: Data from 272/300 (91%) participants were verified. Four algorithms were developed: 'treatment', 'diagnosis', 'treatment or diagnosis', and 'treatment and diagnosis'. The algorithm 'treatment and diagnosis' showed the best measurement properties: specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.72. Applying this algorithm in the LASA sample (mean age 71 years) revealed a prevalence of RA of 1.0% (19/1908 participants).Conclusion: An algorithm for RA identification in the LASA population was developed, with high diagnostic accuracy. It provides an accurate tool to identify older adults with RA in LASA and, after validation, may be applicable in other large population-based studies.

The effect of anti-TNF treatment on body composition and insulin resistance in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Given the link between systemic inflammation, body composition and insulin resistance (IR), anti-inflammatory therapy may improve IR and body composition in inflammatory joint diseases. This study assesses the IR and beta cell function in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with active disease compared to osteoarthritis (OA) patients and investigates the effect of anti-TNF treatment on IR, beta cell function and body composition in RA. 28 Consecutive RA patients starting anti-TNF treatment (adalimumab), and 28 age, and sex-matched patients with OA were followed for 6 months. Exclusion criteria were use of statins, corticosteroids, and cardiovascular or endocrine co-morbidity. Pancreatic beta cell function and IR, using the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA2), and body composition, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were measured at baseline and 6 months. At baseline, IR [1.5 (1.1–1.8) vs. 0.7 (0.6–0.9), 100/%S] and beta cell function (133% vs. 102%) were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in RA patients with active disease as compared to OA patients. After 6 months of anti-TNF treatment, IR [1.5 (1.1–1.8) to 1.4 (1.1–1.7), p = 0.17] slightly improved and beta cell function [133% (115–151) to 118% (109–130), p <0.05] significantly improved. Improvement in IR and beta cell function was most pronounced in RA patients with highest decrease in CRP and ESR. Our observations indicate that IR and increased beta cell function are more common in RA patients with active disease. Anti-TNF reduced IR and beta cell function especially in RA patients with highest decrease in systemic inflammation and this effect was not explained by changes in body composition.

Neutrophil activation identifies patients with active polyarticular gout

Background

Gout is the most prevalent inflammatory arthritis in developed countries. A gout flare is mediated by phagocytosis of monosodium urate crystals by macrophages and neutrophils leading to subsequent activation of neutrophils contributing to synovitis, local joint destruction, and systemic inflammation. We hypothesize that biomarkers from activated neutrophils reflect gout disease activity.

The objective of this study therefore was to investigate the clinical utility of neutrophil-derived biomarkers in gout disease activity.

Methods

Plasma samples from 75 gout patients participating in the “Reade gout cohort Amsterdam” were compared with 30 healthy controls (HC). Levels of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and neutrophil activation markers (calprotectin and peroxidase activity) were analyzed by ELISA and fluorimetry, compared to healthy controls, and related to markers of inflammation and disease activity.

Results

Levels of NETs, as well as neutrophil activation markers, were increased in gout patients compared to HC (p < 0.01). No associations were found between markers of cell death (cell-free DNA and NETs) and disease activity. Cell-free levels of genomic DNA were elevated among gout patients compared to HC (p < 0.05) and related to the number of gout attacks in the last year (β = 0.35, p < 0.01). Peroxidase activity correlated with disease activity (RAPID score: β = 0.49, p < 0.01, MHAQ: β = 0.66, p < 0.01) and inflammation markers (CRP: β = 0.25, p = 0.04, and ESR: β = 0.57, p < 0.001). Involvement of ankle or wrist resulted in significant higher peroxidase levels compared to mono-articular disease (β = 0.34, p < 0.01), indicating that peroxidase activity is a marker of poly-articular gout. Calprotectin (S100A8/A9) correlated with the inflammation marker CRP (β = 0.23, p = 0.05) and morning stiffness, especially in patients with chronic poly-articular gout (β = 0.71, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Neutrophil activation markers are associated with characteristics of active, polyarticular gout. Furthermore, NETs are present in the peripheral blood of gout patients. However, NETs do not associate with markers of disease activity or inflammation. Future research should point out if peroxidase and calprotectin could be used in clinical practice as biomarkers for monitoring gout disease activity.

FRI0362 COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF USTEKINUMAB (UST) AND TNF INHIBITORS (TNFI) IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PSA) IN THE REAL-WORLD, MULTINATIONAL PSABIO STUDY: 12-MONTH FOLLOW-UP

Background:

Among treatment options for PsA, IL-12/23 inhibition with UST was the first new biologic mode of action after TNFi. Few real-world data comparing UST with TNFi are available.

Objectives:

Comparison of UST and TNFi treatment effectiveness within the prospectively followed PsABio cohort at 12-month (mo) follow-up.

Methods:

The PsABio study (NCT02627768) evaluates effectiveness, tolerability and persistence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd-line UST or TNFi in PsA. Proportions of patients (pts) reaching MDA/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) LDA/remission are described. Comparison across UST and TNFi cohorts was done on last observation carried forward up to 12 (±3) mo, with non-response imputation for pts who had stopped/switched initial treatment. Logistic regression analysis was used, including propensity score (PS) analysis to adjust for imbalanced prognostic baseline (BL) covariates: country, age, sex, BMI, smoking (yes/no), comorbidities (cardiovascular/metabolic syndrome), PsA type (axial, polyarticular, oligoarticular), psoriasis body surface area (BSA), disease duration, cDAPSA, 12-item PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12), dactylitis, enthesitis, Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) score, line of biologic (b)DMARD, synthetic DMARD use, and steroid or NSAID use.

Results:

Of 929 eligible pts, 893 had evaluable data at BL and at follow-up; 438 (95.6%) were treated with UST and 455 (96.6%) with TNFi (including stoppers/switchers). UST and TNFi groups had BL differences in mean age (51.0 vs 48.5 years, respectively), concurrent comorbidities (68.7% vs 60.9%), time since diagnosis (7.5 vs 6.2 years), line of treatment (1st-line 45.0% vs 55.2%; 3rd-line 20.5% vs 12.1%), NSAID use (54.8% vs 68.8%), concomitant MTX use (29.9% vs 42.0%) and psoriasis skin involvement (BSA >10% in 26.6% vs 14.8%).

In 714 pts with available data, mean (standard deviation) BL cDAPSA was 30.6 (20.2; n=358) for UST and 29.3 (18.6; n=356) for TNFi. Observed data showed differences in proportion of pts achieving MDA/VLDA and cDAPSA LDA/remission in favour of TNFi, but after PS adjustment for BL differences (such as line of therapy, skin psoriasis, concomitant conventional DMARD, etc.), odds ratios for reaching targets at 12 mo did not significantly differ between UST and TNFi groups (Fig. 1).

Comparison of 6- and 12-mo unadjusted data showed sustained MDA/VLDA responses with both UST (21.8%) and TNFi (29.5%), with comparable proportions of additional pts achieving these targets between 6 and 12 mo (17.0% and 20.3%, respectively). Sustained efficacy became lower with successive lines of treatment (data not shown).

Conclusion:

Various factors, including patient characteristics such as comorbidities, influence the physician’s selection of treatment modality for patients needing a bDMARD. Our real-world results demonstrate differences in observed clinical effectiveness between UST and TNFi. However, after PS adjustment for a number of BL differences, clinical results at 12 mo were comparable between UST and TNFi groups. Data at 12 mo also show sustained response with both UST and TNFi treatment, as well as a similar rate of pts achieving targets after 6 to 12 mo of treatment.

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

SAT0432 EFFECT OF SEX ON DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISEASE IMPACT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE REAL-WORLD, OBSERVATIONAL MULTINATIONAL PsABio COHORT

Background:

Female sex has been associated with more severe disease and poorer treatment outcomes in PsA. These observations are often based on small populations or national cohorts/registries.

Objectives:

To investigate the effects of sex on disease characteristics and disease impact in PsA, using data of 929 consecutive patients (pts) from PsABio.

Methods:

PsABio is a real-world, non-interventional European study in PsA pts treated with UST or TNFi based on their rheumatologist’s choice. Observed male and female baseline (BL) data were described and compared using 95% CI.

Results:

Women in PsABio (n=512 [55%]) were numerically older than men (mean [SD]: 50.5 [12.7] / 48.7 [12.3] years, respectively). Women were more obese (BMI >30), % (95% CI): F: 35 (30, 39), M: 24 (20, 29), men more overweight (BMI >25–30): F: 31 (27, 36), M:51 (46, 57). Age at diagnosis, delay from first symptom to diagnosis, and disease duration were similar for both sexes.

Women entered PsABio more often on 3rd line treatment, whereas men started on 1st-line biologic treatment more often (F/M 1st line 47%/55%; 2nd line 34%/33%; 3rd line 20%/12%). Numerically, concomitant MTX was given more often to women vs men (32% vs 27%). At BL, 60% of women and 64% of men were on NSAIDs; 7.9% and 2.5% on antidepressant drugs. Women had significantly more comorbidities, with numerically more cardiovascular disease and anxiety/depression, and 3 times more IBD.

Women had significantly higher 68 tender joint counts (TJC): 13.0 vs 10.4, while 66 swollen joint counts were not significantly different: 5.8 vs 5.5. Axial or combined axial-peripheral disease was similarly frequent, in 29% of women and 26% of men (Figs. 1, 2).

Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) was higher in women (31.8 vs 27.3); pt-reported levels of pain, global disease activity (VAS scales) and higher TJC contributed to this. While enthesitis prevalence (based on Leeds Enthesitis Index) was comparable, men had significantly more frequent dactylitis, nail disease and worse skin psoriasis. At BL, 3.4% of women vs 7.1% of men, were in MDA.

Regarding physical functioning (HAQ-DI), impact of disease (PSAID-12) and quality of life (EQ5D-3L health state), women with PsA starting a biologic (b)DMARD, expressed significantly greater negative impact and more limitations due to their disease (Fig. 2).

Conclusion:

In routine care, women with PsA starting a bDMARD presented with worse outcomes over a range of assessments compared with men (higher pt-reported pain and disease activity, TJC, and worse physical functioning and QoL), while men had worse dactylitis and psoriasis. Follow-up analysis will report whether the effects of biologic therapy are different in both sexes. The increased prevalence of associated features related to pain and impact on functioning and QoL may indicate the need for a more comprehensive treatment approach for women to avoid unnecessary and premature bDMARD stop or switch.

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Arno WR van Kuijk Grant/research support from: Janssen, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

OP0110 IS VERY EARLY TREATMENT EFFECTIVE? SIX MONTHS RESULTS OF THE PREVAS STUDY, A PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL WITH ETANERCEPT IN PATIENTS SUSPECTED OF NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Despite the new classification criteria for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) patients according to the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS), there are limited data on disease progression in nr-axSpA patients.

Objectives:

First to assess the improvement in disease activity in patients suspected of nr-axSpA after 16 weeks treatment with Etanercept (ETN) or Placebo (PBO). Second, to assess the changes of active inflammation on MRI of the SI-joints (SIJ) between the ETN and PBO group after 16 and 24 weeks without study medication.

Methods:

The PrevAS study is a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial with ETN performed in the VU University medical center (VUmc) (EudraCT number 2009-015515-40), with a screening period from 2009 until 2014. Patients suspected of nr-axSpA were included if they had chronic back pain for ≥ 3 months, were ≥ 18 years, fulfilled the Calin criteria of inflammatory back pain and had to be either HLA-B27 positive with at least ≥ 1 Spondyloarthritis (SpA)-feature (as defined by the European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG), or HLA-B27 negative with at least ≥ 2 SpA-features and had a high disease activity score (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4) plus insufficient response to at least two NSAIDs. Excluded were patients who fulfilled the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis, or in case of previous biological use. Included patients were randomly assigned (1:1) for 16 weeks treatment with ETN (N=40) or PBO (N=40) and followed after the treatment period for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients achieving the ASAS20 response at week 16. MRI was performed at baseline, 16 and 24 weeks and scored using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index for number of active inflammatory lesions.

Results:

The majority of included patients was female (63.8%). Patient characteristics, like the presence of the HLA-B27 antigen and number of SpA-features at baseline, were comparable between the ETN and PBO group. Mean compliance to the study medication at sixteen weeks was 72.1%. Longitudinal regression analysis over the first 16 weeks showed a trend towards a three times higher chance to achieve the ASAS20 response in the ETN compared to the PBO group (OR = 3.2, 95% CI [0.6;16.7]p=0.18) (Figure 1). No differences were observed in ASAS20 response at 24 weeks. A positive SPARCC score (SPARCC ≥ 2.5) of the SIJ was observed in the ETN and PBO group in 33.3% (13/39 patients) vs. 30.8% (12/39 patients) at baseline, 16.7% (6/36 patients) vs. 17.5% (7/40 patients) at 16 weeks and 21.9% (7/32 patients) vs. 20.0% (7/35 patients) at 24 weeks, respectively. Increased CRP-levels (CRP_UL ≥ 10.0mg/L) nor a positive SPARCC score at baseline, had significant influence on the ASAS20 response at 16 weeks follow-up. The safety profile was consistent with what is known for ETN in AS.

Conclusion:

Patients suspected of nr-axSpA with high disease activity showed a trend towards a three times higher chance to achieve the ASAS20 response in the ETN group, compared to the PBO group at 16 weeks, regardless of a raised CRP level or positive MRI-SIJ at baseline.

Figure:

Acknowledgments:

We thank Pfizer for financial support of this investigator initiated study. In addition we want to thank H. Hofman and W.A. ter Wee for practical study support.

Disclosure of Interests:

Tamara Rusman: None declared, Mignon A.C. van der Weijden: None declared, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Janneke J. de Winter: None declared, B.J.H. Boden: None declared, Pierre M. Bet: None declared, Camile M.A. van der Bijl: None declared, Conny J. van der Laken: None declared, Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma

SAT0398 PERSISTENCE OF USTEKINUMAB (UST) OR TNF INHIBITOR (TNFI) TREATMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE LARGE, PROSPECTIVE, MULTINATIONAL, REAL-WORLD PsABio COHORT

Background:

Several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) exist for PsA, TNFi and UST being the earliest on European markets. When bDMARDs are insufficiently effective, later-line bDMARDs typically have shorter persistence. Treatment persistence reflects a mix of effectiveness and adverse events (AEs), and persistence data are limited in PsA.

Objectives:

Comparative analysis of 1-year persistence of UST and TNFi within the prospective PsABio cohort.

Methods:

PsABio is an observational, multinational study of PsA patients (pts) treated with 1st to 3rd line UST or TNFi at their rheumatologist’s discretion.1Treatment persistence (up to 15 months of follow-up) was defined as time between start of first bDMARD treatment in PsABio, and either stop or switch to another bDMARD, or withdrawal.

Persistence of UST and TNFi is shown by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using Cox regression analysis, with propensity score (PS) to adjust for baseline imbalanced demographic and disease-related covariates (age, sex, bDMARD line, BMI, Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis [cDAPSA], 12-item PsA Impact of Disease [PsAID-12], Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool [FiRST] score, co-treatments with MTX, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, cardiovascular/metabolic comorbidities, dactylitis, enthesitis and body surface area [BSA]). Factors including concomitant MTX use and skin involvement: <3%, 3–10% and >10%, were added to the Cox model to investigate their impact on the PS-adjusted treatment effect.

Results:

Of 438 and 455 pts who started UST and TNF, respectively, 121 (28%) and 134 (29%) stopped or switched treatment before Month 15, with differences (as expected) according to treatment line (Fig. 1a, b). Reasons for stop/switch were related to safety/AEs in 12% (UST) and 28% (TNFi), and effectiveness (joints, nails or skin) in 77% (UST) and 69% (TNFi) of pts.

The observed mean time on drug was 397 days for UST and 385 days for TNFi pts (1st line 410/397 days, 2nd 390/382 days, 3rd 381/338 days). Fig. 1b shows similar persistence for all drugs and treatment lines, except for lower persistence in TNFi 3rd line vs 1st/2nd. In PS-adjusted Cox analysis, no statistically significant difference between UST and TNFi persistence was seen; hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) for stop/switch bDMARD (UST vs TNFi) was 0.82 (0.60, 1.13). In the model, bDMARD monotherapy (without MTX) and extensive skin involvement (BSA >10%), showed significantly better persistence for UST (HR 0.61 [0.42, 0.90] and 0.41 [0.19, 0.89] respectively; unadjusted Kaplan-Meier graphs shown in Fig. 1c, d). MTX co-therapy and low BSA did not affect the PS-adjusted treatment effect. Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects.

Conclusion:

In this real-world PsA cohort undergoing bDMARD treatment, persistence was generally comparable for UST and TNFi, but some clinical situations led to better drug persistence with UST compared to TNFi – particularly monotherapy, more extensive skin involvement, and in 3rd-line treatment. Our data emphasise the importance of skin involvement for pts with PsA.

References:

[1]Gossec L, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(suppl 2):Abstract AB0928

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi

Implicit and explicit attitudes towards disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as possible target for improving medication adherence

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the contribution of implicit attitudes and associations towards conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), alongside explicit measures, on medication-taking behaviour and clinical outcomes in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

In this observational study, implicit attitudes (positive-negative) and health-related associations (health-sickness) were measured with Single Category Implicit Association Tests, whereas explicit outcomes were measured with a bipolar evaluative adjective scale and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire Specific. The primary outcome of this study was medication-taking behaviour subjectively measured by self-report (i.e. validated Compliance Questionnaire on Rheumatology) and objectively measured with electronic drug monitors over a 3 month period. Spearman rank correlations were used to describe correlations between implicit and explicit outcomes. Nested linear regression models were used to assess the additional value of implicit measures over explicit measures and patient-, clinical-, and treatment-related characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 1659 initially-invited patients, 254 patients with RA agreed to participate in this study. Implicit attitudes correlated significantly with necessity-concerns differential (NCD) scores (ρ = 0.13, P = 0.05) and disease activity scores (ρ = -0.17, P = 0.04), whereas implicit health-related associations correlated significantly with mean scores for explicitly reported health-related associations (ρ = 0.18, P = 0.004). Significant differences in age, number of DMARDs, biologic DMARD use, NCD-scores, and self-reported correct dosing were found between the four attitudinal profiles. Nested linear regression models revealed no additional value of implicit measures in explaining self-reported medication-taking behaviour and clinical outcomes, over and above all other variables.

CONCLUSION

Implicit attitudes and associations had no additional value in explaining medication-taking behaviour and clinical outcomes over and above often used explicitly measured characteristics, attitudes and outcomes in the studied population. Only age and NCD scores contributed significantly when the dependent variable was correct dosing measured with self-report.

Suboptimal cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis patients despite an explicit cardiovascular risk screening programme

Objective: In 2011, we started to offer cardiovascular (CV) risk screening to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with a high CV risk. After 1 year, we assessed whether patients labelled as high CV risk had started preventive treatment when indicated, and whether the CV risk score had changed. Methods: CV risk screening was performed in both a large outpatient rheumatology clinic and a general hospital in the Netherlands, and the general practitioner or the internist was informed about the results of the CV screening, including specific advice on the initiation or adjustment of cardiopreventive drugs. National guidelines were used to assess how many patients were eligible for preventive treatment. After 1 year, CV risk, lifestyle, and treatment were re-evaluated. Patients with a history of CV disease at baseline or who experienced a CV event during follow-up were excluded from the analyses. Results: A high 10 year CV risk (> 20%) was present in 58%, and 55% had an indication for anti-hypertensives, statins, or both. At follow-up, cardiopreventive drug treatment had been started or adjusted in only one-third of patients with an indication for treatment. After screening, 42% of patients reported having changed their lifestyle, through more exercise (24%), diet adaption (20%), and weight loss (11%). Conclusion: Despite clear guidelines to improve CV risk, the results of a programme comprising active screening, targeted advice, and referral to the general practitioner or internist prove that primary prevention remains a major challenge in high-risk RA patients.

Serum drug concentrations to optimize switching from adalimumab to etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: Inadequate response to adalimumab can be caused by insufficient blockade of the target tumour necrosis factor (TNF) at low serum concentrations. In such cases, patients may respond to another TNF inhibitor. We investigated whether the serum adalimumab concentration is related to the efficacy of a second TNF inhibitor, etanercept, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Patients with RA starting etanercept treatment were prospectively observed in the Reade Rheumatology Registry. In patients previously on adalimumab, serum concentrations were determined before treatment discontinuation. According to this concentration, three subgroups were formed: < 0.5 μg/mL, 0.5-5.0 μg/mL, and ≥ 5.0 μg/mL. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good/moderate response rate after 52 weeks of etanercept was compared between the switcher subgroups and biologic-naive patients. Results: In total, 449 consecutive patients were included, of whom 69 switched from adalimumab (15%) and 380 were biologic naive (85%). EULAR good or moderate response was achieved by 74% of the biologic-naive patients and by 72%, 50%, and 52% of switchers with adalimumab concentration < 0.5 μg/mL, 0.5-5.0 μg/mL, and ≥ 5.0 μg/mL, respectively (p = 0.15). Patients with an adalimumab concentration ≥ 0.5 μg/mL were significantly less likely to achieve EULAR good/moderate response on etanercept compared to biologic-naive patients, whereas patients with a concentration < 0.5 μg/mL did not significantly differ from patients starting etanercept without prior biologic treatment. Conclusion: RA patients with an inadequate response to adalimumab, in the presence of sufficient drug concentrations, benefit less from switching to another TNF inhibitor, etanercept.

The effects of golimumab treatment on systolic and diastolic left ventricular function in ankylosing spondylitis

Background

Diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction appears more prevalent in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The effects of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) blocking therapy, a strong and effective anti-inflammatory drug, on diastolic LV function in AS are unknown. The objective of the study was to find the effects of 1-year treatment with golimumab 50 mg subcutaneously once per month on systolic and diastolic LV dysfunction in AS patients.

Methods

Forty consecutive AS patients were treated with TNF-α blocking therapy for 1 year. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in all patients at baseline and after 1 year of treatment.

Results

Diastolic LV function improved after treatment in four out of six (67%) AS patients who completed follow-up (P=0.125), and did not develop or worsen in any of the other patients. Treatment with TNF-α blocking therapy had no effect on systolic LV function.

Conclusion

These findings give support to the hypothesis that diastolic LV dysfunction improves during treatment with TNF-α blocking therapy.

Adherence to etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients during 3 years of follow-up

Objectives

To determine the percentage non-adherence to etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during three years of follow-up.

Methods

During study visits in this prospective cohort study, blood samples were taken to determine serum etanercept concentrations using ELISA and patients were asked if they had missed an etanercept dose, at which date and for what reason. Non-adherence was defined as serum etanercept concentration <0.1 μg/mL and no valid reason to miss the prescribed etanercept dose.

Results

In total, 292 consecutive patients treated with etanercept were included. Most patients had a valid reason to miss their etanercept dose (25/37). In total 12 out of 292 patients (4.1%, 95% confidence interval 2.2–7.2) were non-adherent during the 3 year period. In a small percentage of patients (3.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.8–10.4) who failed to respond to etanercept therapy, according to their rheumatologist, this was associated with inadequate exposure to etanercept and thus non-adherence.

Conclusion

In this study, adherence to etanercept therapy was measured using serum etanercept concentration. In most patients an absent etanercept concentration was due to a medical reason. Furthermore, the majority of patients were adherent to etanercept therapy and had adequate drug exposure. In total, only 12 out of 292 patients (4.1%) were non-adherent during 3 years of follow-up. These findings highlight that only a small minority of patients are non-adherent to etanercept treatment, especially compared to adherence rates of other drugs. However, physicians should be aware that in patients failing to respond to treatment, non-adherence is a possible cause.

Thrombin-Antithrombin III Complexes in the Prediction of Deep Vein Thrombosis Following Total Hip Replacement

In 196 consecutive patients who underwent elective total hip surgery we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the thrombinantithrombin III complex immunoassay, as assessed on the first, fourth and tenth postoperative day, for the development of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Patients received either LMWheparinoid (n = 97) or placebo (n = 99) and underwent contrast venography on the tenth postoperative day.

Thrombin-antithrombin III (T-AT) plasma levels were raised in all patients on the first postoperative day and gradually decreased during the study period. T-AT plasma levels were significantly higher in patients developing DVT when compared to patients without DVT and remained so until day 10. This difference was apparent both in the LMW-heparinoid group as well as in the placebo-treated patients.

ROC-curve analysis revealed no satisfactory discriminative power for the diagnosis of developing DVT at any of the studied cut-off values for T-AT.

We conclude that the postoperative determination of T-AT complex plasma concentrations in hip surgery patients has no clinical utility in the prediction of postoperative DVT.

Effects on Thrombin Generation of Single Injections of Hirulog™ in Patients with Calf Vein Thrombosis

1. Study objective: To determine whether single injections of Hirulog, a direct thrombin inhibitor, can inhibit thrombin generation in patients with calf vein thrombosis and, if so, if the inhibition is sustained.

2. Design: Phase II open label cohort study.

3. Setting: Tertiary-care referral centres, university affiliated hospitals.

4. Patients: 10 patients with venographically-demonstrated calf vein thrombosis.

5. Intervention: Patients received a single injection of Hirulog, either 1.0 mg/kg subcutaneously or 0.6 mg/kg as a 15 min intravenous infusion. Prothrombin fragment (F1+2) levels, as an index of thrombin generation, were measured before as well as 6 h post- and 24 h post-Hirulog administration. Patients were followed with non-invasive tests to detect thrombus extension into the proximal veins.

6. Results: There was a significant reduction in the levels of F1+2 with both regimens, 6 h after Hirulog. The Fl+2 levels 24 h post-Hirulog showed a significant increase relative to the 6 h post-Hirulog results. One patient developed thrombus extension into the popliteal vein and was treated with conventional anticoagulants.

7. Conclusion: The single injections of Hirulog used in the study produced incomplete and temporary suppression of F1+2. Complete and permanent inhibition of thrombin generation with Hirulog in patients with calf vein thrombosis may require higher doses, multiple subcutaneous injections and/or prolonged intravenous infusion.

Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis following Total Hip Replacement by Low Molecular Weight Heparinoid

We assessed the safety and efficacy of the novel low molecular weight heparinoid Lomoparan (Org 10172) for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in 197 consecutive patients. The heparinoid (750 anti-factor Xa-units, s. c., b.i.d.) was administered to 97 patients and 99 patients received placebo. Study medication was started preoperatively and continued for 10 days. Efficacy was assessed by bilateral phlebography at day 10, postoperatively.

The incidence of deep-vein thrombosis was 56.6% and 15.5% respectively in the placebo and heparinoid treated patients (incidence reduction: 74%; P <0.001). This reduction was observed both for proximal-vein thrombosis (25% to 8%; P <0.005) and isolated calf-vein thrombosis (31% to 7%; P <0001.

No major hemorrhage was observed. The number of red-cell units transfused and drain-fluid loss were comparable for the two study groups. Six patients in the heparinoid group and none in the control group developed minor wound hematomas (P <0.05).

During an 8-week post-discharge follow-up period three patients with a normal venogram at day 10 developed clinically apparent venous thromboembolism, which was confirmed by objective testing. All three patients belonged to the heparinoid-treated group.

We conclude that 750 anti-factor Xa units Org 10172 s.c. twice daily starting preoperatively is safe and effectively reduces early deep-vein thrombosis following elective total hip replacement. Further studies on the incidence of post-discharge thromboembolism are required.

Comparison of drug survival and clinical outcome in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with etanercept or adalimumab

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of drug survival and clinical response during 2 years of follow-up in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients treated with etanercept or adalimumab in routine care.

METHOD

Biological-naïve consecutive AS patients treated with etanercept (n = 163) or adalimumab (n = 82) were followed. Treatment discontinuation was due to inefficacy, adverse events, loss to follow-up, planning a pregnancy, or uveitis. Disease activity was assessed by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP). Moderate disease activity was defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 2.1.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (32.9%) treated with adalimumab and 30 (18.4%) with etanercept discontinued treatment. Cox regression analysis demonstrated a significant difference in survival rate between discontinuation of the drug in adalimumab patients compared with etanercept patients [hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.5, p = 0.005; corrected for confounding factors: HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.5, p = 0.006]. There was no significant difference at 2 years of follow-up between the adalimumab- and the etanercept-treated patients in mean ± sd ASDAS-CRP (1.9 ± 1.1 and 2.0 ± 0.9, respectively, p = 0.624), and 23 out of 34 (67.6%) compared to 71 out of 117 (60.7%) reached ASDAS-CRP moderate disease activity (odds ratio 0.738, 95% CI 0.329-1.657, p = 0.530).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was found between AS patients treated with etanercept and those treated with adalimumab in mean ASDAS-CRP and reaching ASDAS-CRP minimal disease activity at 2 year follow-up. Drug survival rate was higher in etanercept- compared to adalimumab-treated patients. However, this should be interpreted cautiously as the risk of allocation bias cannot be excluded.

Association of Somatic Comorbidities and Comorbid Depression With Mortality in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 14-Year Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with the general population. One of the most important predictors for mortality is somatic comorbidity. Moreover, studies have demonstrated that comorbid depression is associated with mortality. Which specific comorbidities are associated with mortality is less investigated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of a wide range of comorbidities with mortality in patients with RA.

METHODS

Longitudinal data over a 14-year period were collected from 882 patients with RA. Data were assessed with questionnaires. The mortality status was obtained from the Statistics Netherlands for the period 1996-2011 for 99% of the patients. Somatic comorbidity was assessed in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2008 and measured by a national population-based questionnaire including 20 chronic diseases. Comorbid depression was assessed in 1997, 1998, and 1999 and measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Cox regression was used to study the relationship between comorbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

At baseline, 72% of the patients were women. The mean ± SD age was 59.3 ± 14.8 years, and the median (interquartile range) disease duration was 5.0 (2.0-14.0) years. A total of 345 patients died during the study period. Comorbidities that were associated with mortality were circulatory conditions (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15-2.22]), respiratory conditions (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.09-1.89]), cancer (HR 2.00 [95% CI 1.28-3.12]), and depression (HR 1.35 [95% CI 1.06-1.72]).

CONCLUSION

Comorbid circulatory conditions, respiratory conditions, cancer, and depression are associated with mortality among patients with RA. Careful monitoring of these comorbidities during the course of the disease and adequate referral may improve health outcomes and chances of surviving.

EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other forms of inflammatory joint disorders: 2015/2016 update

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory joint disorders (IJD) have increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. In 2009, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce recommended screening, identification of CVD risk factors and CVD risk management largely based on expert opinion. In view of substantial new evidence, an update was conducted with the aim of producing CVD risk management recommendations for patients with IJD that now incorporates an increasing evidence base. A multidisciplinary steering committee (representing 13 European countries) comprised 26 members including patient representatives, rheumatologists, cardiologists, internists, epidemiologists, a health professional and fellows. Systematic literature searches were performed and evidence was categorised according to standard guidelines. The evidence was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Three overarching principles were defined. First, there is a higher risk for CVD in patients with RA, and this may also apply to ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Second, the rheumatologist is responsible for CVD risk management in patients with IJD. Third, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids should be in accordance with treatment-specific recommendations from EULAR and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society. Ten recommendations were defined, of which one is new and six were changed compared with the 2009 recommendations. Each designated an appropriate evidence support level. The present update extends on the evidence that CVD risk in the whole spectrum of IJD is increased. This underscores the need for CVD risk management in these patients. These recommendations are defined to provide assistance in CVD risk management in IJD, based on expert opinion and scientific evidence.

Serum tocilizumab trough concentration can be used to monitor systemic IL-6 receptor blockade in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and dynamics of tocilizumab (TCZ) in daily practice.

METHOD

An observational study of 66 consecutive RA patients treated with TCZ 8 mg/kg once every 4 weeks intravenously, monitored for 24 weeks. Spearman's rank test was used to investigate the correlation between TCZ concentration and C-reactive protein (CRP). Clinical improvement was assessed at week 24 using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) compared to baseline, and its relationship with TCZ concentration was investigated using linear regression analyses. TCZ trough concentrations and anti-drug antibodies were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and antigen binding test, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, 26 patients (39.4%) had a CRP level above 10 mg/L with a median (interquartile range, IQR) of 37.7 (21.9-49.7) mg/L. A TCZ concentration above 1 mg/L was sufficient to normalize CRP levels. Spearman's rank test showed a correlation coefficient of -0.460 (p < 0.0001). The TCZ concentration varied widely, with concentrations < 1 mg/L in 17-31% of patients, depending on the time point of measurement. Anti-TCZ antibodies were detected in one sample. Linear regression analyses showed a coefficient of 0.080 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.039-0.113 (p < 0.001) for the association between TCZ concentration and ΔDAS28. No confounders were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The TCZ standard regimen results in a wide variety of serum TCZ trough concentrations; this is mostly due to target binding and to a lesser extent to immunogenicity. The majority of patients obtained TCZ concentrations > 1 mg/L, which is sufficient for CRP normalization. Therefore, dose taper strategies might be possible in a substantial proportion of patients.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic inflammatory joint disorders

Inflammatory joint disorders (IJD), including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (ASp) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), are prevalent conditions worldwide with a considerable burden on healthcare systems. IJD are associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) disease-related morbidity and mortality. In this review, we present an overview of the literature. Standardised mortality ratios are increased in IJD compared with the general population, that is, RA 1.3-2.3, ASp 1.6-1.9 and PsA 0.8-1.6. This premature mortality is mainly caused by atherosclerotic events. In RA, this CV risk is comparable to that in type 2 diabetes. Traditional CV risk factors are more often present and partially a consequence of changes in physical function related to the underlying IJD. Also, chronic systemic inflammation itself is an independent CV risk factor. Optimal control of disease activity with conventional synthetic, targeted synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs decreases this excess risk. High-grade inflammation as well as anti-inflammatory treatment alter traditional CV risk factors, such as lipids. In view of the above-mentioned CV burden in patients with IJD, CV risk management is necessary. Presently, this CV risk management is still lacking in usual care. Patients, general practitioners, cardiologists, internists and rheumatologists need to be aware of the substantially increased CV risk in IJD and should make a combined effort to timely initiate CV risk management in accordance with prevailing guidelines together with optimal control of rheumatic disease activity. CV screening and treatment strategies need to be implemented in usual care.

Lower etanercept levels are associated with high disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis patients at 24 weeks of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous data have shown that etanercept levels are associated with clinical response in rheumatoid arthritis. However, for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), data regarding this topic are inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between etanercept levels and clinical response in patients with AS.

METHODS

Observational prospective cohort study of 162 patients with AS =treated with etanercept, monitored during 24 weeks of treatment. Etanercept trough levels were determined, retrospectively, using an ELISA. Disease activity was measured using AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), including C-reactive protein (CRP) and Bath AS Disease Activity index (BASDAI). Active disease was defined as ASDAS≥2.1. Since etanercept is a drug administered at home there might have been some variation in trough level sampling.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks etanercept levels were significantly higher in patients with ASDAS<2.1, (3.8 mg/L; IQR 2.5-5.2) compared with patients with ASDAS≥2.1 (2.3 mg/L; IQR 1.2-3.4; p≤0.001). Generalised estimating equation analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association between etanercept levels and ASDAS, BASDAI, CRP and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (all p<0.001). When patients were categorised into quartiles according to etanercept levels, the lowest quartile (etanercept<1.80 mg/L) comprised 35% of all patients with ASDAS≥2.1 while the highest quartile comprised only 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity and inflammation are associated with etanercept levels in patients with AS at 24 weeks of treatment. Measuring etanercept levels might help in identifying overtreatment and undertreatment and optimise etanercept therapy in AS.