Evaluation of discontinuation for adverse events of JAK inhibitors and bDMARDs in an international collaboration of rheumatoid arthritis registers (the 'JAK-pot' study).

BACKGROUND: In a clinical trial setting, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) tofacitinib demonstrated higher adverse events rates compared with those taking the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab or etanercept. OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment discontinuations for adverse events (AEs) among second-line therapies in an international real-world RA population. METHODS: Patients initiating JAKi, TNFi or a biological with another mode of action (OMA) from 17 registers participating in the 'JAK-pot' collaboration were included. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs. We used unadjusted and adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models to compare treatment discontinuations for AEs among treatment groups by class, but also evaluating separately the specific type of JAKi. RESULTS: Of the 46 913 treatment courses included, 12 523 were JAKi (43% baricitinib, 40% tofacitinib, 15% upadacitinib, 2% filgotinib), 23 391 TNFi and 10 999 OMA. The adjusted cause-specific hazard rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs was similar for TNFi versus JAKi (1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.10) and higher for OMA versus JAKi (1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23), lower with TNFi compared with tofacitinib (0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), but higher for TNFi versus baricitinib (1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30) and lower for TNFi versus JAKi in patients 65 or older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor (0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97). CONCLUSION: While JAKi overall were not associated with more treatment discontinuations for AEs, subgroup analyses suggest varying patterns with specific JAKi, such as tofacitinib, compared with TNFi. However, these observations should be interpreted cautiously, given the observational study design.

Which advanced treatment should be used following the failure of a first-line anti-TNF in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? 15 years of evidence from the Quebec registry RHUMADATA.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, advanced therapies (AT) have revolutionized the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Randomized control trials as well as observational studies together with medication availability often determine second-line choices after the failure of first Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitors (TNFi). This led to the observation that specific sequences provide better long-term effectiveness. We investigated which alternative medication offers the best long-term sustainability following the first TNFi failure in RA. METHODS: Data were extracted from RHUMADATA from January2007. Patients were followed until treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or November 25, 2022. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to compare discontinuation between groups. Missing data were imputed, and propensity scores were computed to reduce potential attribution bias. Complete, unadjusted, and propensity score-adjusted imputed data analyses were produced. RESULTS: 611 patients (320 treated with a TNFi and 291 treated with molecules having another mechanism of action (OMA)) were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 44.5 and 43.9 years, respectively. The median retention was 2.84 and 4.48 years for TNFi and OMAs groups. Using multivariable analysis, the discontinuation rate of the OMA group was significantly lower than TNFi (adjHR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94). This remained true for the PS-adjusted MI Cox models. In a stratified analysis, rituximab (adjHR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84) had better retention than TNFi after adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Switching to an OMA, especially rituximab, in patients with failure to a first TNFi appears to be the best strategy as a second line of therapy.

Residual Disease Activity in Canadian Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis Treated With Advanced Therapies: Results From a Multiregistry Analysis (UNISON-PsA).

OBJECTIVE: Although patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have improved with the advent of advanced therapies, there remains a high unmet need to treat residual disease activity. The objective of the current study was to quantify residual disease activity and burden of disease in Canadian patients with PsA. METHODS: This was a multiregion, observational, retrospective analysis of patient data extracted from the Rhumadata and the International Psoriasis and Arthritis Research Team (IPART) registries, analyzing deidentified data from patients who had initiated advanced therapy for the treatment of PsA between January 2010 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients failing to achieve minimal disease activity (MDA) within 6 months; secondary endpoints included clinical and patient-reported burden of disease. Descriptive statistics included summaries by region, treatment class, and number of prior advanced therapies. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred ninety-six patients were included. The proportions of patients who failed to achieve MDA within 6 months of an advanced therapy were 64.8% in Ontario, 68.3% in Western Canada, 74.8% in Quebec, and 75% in the Atlantic/East region. Failure to achieve MDA was higher among patients receiving an IL-17i compared with a TNFi in all regions except the Atlantic/East. Between 73.2% and 78.6% of patients reported pain at 6 months, and continuing functional impairment varied from 24% in the West to 83.3% in the Atlantic/East. CONCLUSION: There is substantial burden and unmet need for improved therapies for Canadians with PsA. There is a wide regional variation in outcomes that requires further assessment.

Impact of anti-rheumatic treatment on the individual components of the ACR composite score in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Standard criteria for measuring treatment efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, which require meeting a threshold of ≥20/50/70% improvement in several physician- and patient-reported measures. We aimed to evaluate the impact of csDMARDs, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and tofacitinib (TOFA) on ACR components in real-life practice. METHODS: Clinical data of RA patients with a CDAI >10 at the time they started a treatment were pooled from two registries: Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) and RHUMADATA. Endpoints included proportions of patients achieving: ACR20/50/70 responses, ≥20/50/70% improvements and mean percentage improvement in individual ACR components at Month 6. We also adjusted for potential confounders to compare impact of these medications on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 669 patients were included (csDMARD, n=157, TNFi, n=252; TOFA, n=260). An overall higher proportion in all three-medication groups achieved ≥20/50/70% improvement in primary ACR components vs. secondary components. Among secondary components, ≥20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically highest for PhGA and lowest for HAQ-DI and pain. Among ACR20/50/70 responders for all medications, the mean percentage improvement was more than 80% for primary components, and ranged from 30% to 80% for secondary components. A significantly lower proportion of patients in TNFi group achieved to at least 50% improvement in pain compared to TOFA after adjusting. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world practice, physician-reported measures contribute slightly more to overall ACR20/50/70 responses. Pain was the most important factor in achieving an ACR50 TOFA users, possibly reflecting the different effects of JAKi on pain.

After JAK inhibitor failure: to cycle or to switch, that is the question - data from the JAK-pot collaboration of registries.

OBJECTIVES: The expanded therapeutic arsenal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) raises new clinical questions. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cycling Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) with switching to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with RA after failure to the first JAKi. METHODS: This is a nested cohort study within data pooled from an international collaboration of 17 national registries (JAK-pot collaboration). Data from patients with RA with JAKi treatment failure and who were subsequently treated with either a second JAKi or with a bDMARD were prospectively collected. Differences in drug retention rates after second treatment initiation were assessed by log-rank test and Cox regression analysis adjusting for potential confounders. Change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over time was estimated using a linear regression model, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 365 cycling and 1635 switching patients were studied. Cyclers were older and received a higher number of previous bDMARDs. Both strategies showed similar observed retention rates after 2 years of follow-up. However, adjusted analysis revealed that cycling was associated with higher retention (p=0.04). Among cyclers, when the first JAKi was discontinued due to an adverse event (AE), it was more likely that the second JAKi would also be stopped due to an AE. Improvement in CDAI over time was similar in both strategies. CONCLUSIONS: After failing the first JAKi, cycling JAKi and switching to a bDMARD appear to have similar effectiveness. Caution is advised if an AE was the reason to stop the first JAKi.

Effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors, abatacept, IL6-inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in 31 846 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 19 registers from the 'JAK-pot' collaboration.

BACKGROUND: JAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk. RESULTS: We included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA. CONCLUSION: The adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i.

The impact of seropositivity on the effectiveness of biologic anti-rheumatic agents: results from a collaboration of 16 registries.

OBJECTIVES: RF and ACPA are used as diagnostic tools and their presence has been associated with clinical response to some biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. This study compared the impact of seropositivity on drug discontinuation and effectiveness of bDMARDs in patients with RA, using head-to-head comparisons in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 16 observational RA registries. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RA, initiation of treatment with rituximab (RTX), abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and available information on RF and/or ACPA status. Drug discontinuation was analysed using Cox regression, including drug, seropositivity, their interaction, adjusting for concomitant and past treatments and patient and disease characteristics and accounting for country and calendar year of bDMARD initiation. Effectiveness was analysed using the Clinical Disease Activity Index evolution over time. RESULTS: Among the 27 583 eligible patients, the association of seropositivity with drug discontinuation differed across bDMARDs (P for interaction <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for seropositive compared with seronegative patients were 1.01 (95% CI 0.95, 1.07) for TNFis, 0.89 (0.78, 1.02)] for TCZ, 0.80 (0.72, 0.88) for ABA and 0.70 (0.59, 0.84) for RTX. Adjusted differences in remission and low disease activity rates between seropositive and seronegative patients followed the same pattern, with no difference in TNFis, a small difference in TCZ, a larger difference in ABA and the largest difference in RTX (Lundex remission difference +5.9%, low disease activity difference +11.6%). CONCLUSION: Seropositivity was associated with increased effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, especially RTX and ABA, but not TNFis.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

The challenge of indication extrapolation for infliximab biosimilars.

A biosimilar is intended to be highly similar to a reference biologic such that any differences in quality attributes (i.e., molecular characteristics) do not affect safety or efficacy. Achieving this benchmark for biologics, especially large glycoproteins such as monoclonal antibodies, is challenging given their complex structure and manufacturing. Regulatory guidance on biosimilars issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and European Medicines Agency indicates that, in addition to a demonstration of a high degree of similarity in quality attributes, a reduced number of nonclinical and clinical comparative studies can be sufficient for approval. Following a tiered approach, clinical studies are required to address concerns about possible clinically significant differences that remain after laboratory and nonclinical evaluations. Consequently, a critical question arises: can clinical studies that satisfy concerns regarding safety and efficacy in one condition support "indication extrapolation" to other conditions? This question will be addressed by reviewing the case of a biosimilar to infliximab that was approved recently in South Korea, Europe, and Canada for multiple indications through extrapolation. The principles discussed should also apply to biosimilars of other monoclonal antibodies that are approved to treat multiple distinct conditions.

Oral glucocorticoid use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNF-inhibitors, tocilizumab or abatacept: Results from the international TOCERRA and PANABA observational collaborative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the use of oral glucocorticoids with three classes of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We included patients from 13 observational registries treated with a TNF-inhibitor, abatacept or tocilizumab and with available information on the use of oral glucocorticoids. The main outcome was oral glucocorticoid withdrawal. A McNemar test was used to analyse the change in the use of glucocorticoids after 1 year. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regressions, adjusted for patient, treatment, and disease characteristics, were used to evaluate glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with glucocorticoids at baseline. Because of heterogeneity, analyses were done by registers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12,334 participants treated with TNF-inhibitors, 2100 with tocilizumab and 3229 with abatacept were included. At one-year, oral glucocorticoid use decreased in all treatment groups (odds ratio for stopping vs. starting of 2.19 [95% CI 1.58; 3.04] for TNF-inhibitors, 2.46 [1.39; 4.35] for tocilizumab; 1.73 [1.25; 2.21] for abatacept). Median time to glucocorticoid withdrawal was ≈2 years or more in most countries, with a gradual decrease over time. Compared to TNF-inhibitors, crude hazard ratios of glucocorticoid discontinuation were 0.65[0.48-0.87] for abatacept, and 1.04 [0.76-1.43] for tocilizumab, and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.1 [0.83-1.47] for abatacept, and 1.30 [0.96-1.78] for tocilizumab. CONCLUSION: After initiation of a bDMARD, glucocorticoid use decreased similarly in all treatment groups. However, glucocorticoid withdrawal was much slower than advocated by current international guidelines. More effort should be devoted to glucocorticoid tapering when low disease activity is achieved.

Comparison of two referral strategies for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis: the Recognising and Diagnosing Ankylosing Spondylitis Reliably (RADAR) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which of two referral strategies, when used by referring physicians for patients with chronic back pain (CBP), is superior for diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) by rheumatologists across several countries. METHODS: Primary care referral sites in 16 countries were randomised (1 : 1) to refer patients with CBP lasting >3 months and onset before age 45 years to a rheumatologist using either strategy 1 (any of inflammatory back pain (IBP), HLA-B27 or sacroiliitis on imaging) or strategy 2 (two of the following: IBP, HLA-B27, sacroiliitis, family history of axial SpA, good response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, extra-articular manifestations). The rheumatologist established the diagnosis. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients diagnosed with definite axial SpA by referral strategy. RESULTS: Patients (N=1072) were referred by 278 sites to 64 rheumatologists: 504 patients by strategy 1 and 568 patients by strategy 2. Axial SpA was diagnosed in 35.6% and 39.8% of patients referred by these respective strategies (between-group difference 4.40%; 95% CI -7.09% to 15.89%; p=0.447). IBP was the most frequently used referral criterion (94.7% of cases), showing high concordance (85.4%) with rheumatologists' assessments, and having sensitivity and a negative predictive value of >85% but a positive predictive value and specificity of <50%. Combining IBP with other criteria (eg, sacroiliitis, HLA-B27) increased the likelihood for diagnosing axial SpA. CONCLUSIONS: A referral strategy based on three criteria leads to a diagnosis of axial SpA in approximately 35% of patients with CBP and is applicable across countries and geographical locales with presumably different levels of expertise in axial SpA.

Real-World Retention and Clinical Effectiveness of Secukinumab for Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From the Canadian Spondyloarthritis Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory condition consisting of 2 clinical subsets: nonradiographic axSpA and ankylosing spondylitis, the latter having an estimated prevalence of 0.2% to 1% in Canada. Secukinumab (SEC) received Health Canada approval in 2016 for the treatment of adults with axSpA who have responded inadequately to conventional treatment, and has demonstrated efficacy and safety through extensive clinical trials. However, there is limited evidence on its real-world use in Canada. The objective of this study was to use the Canadian Spondyloarthritis (CanSpA) Research Network to describe real-world retention and effectiveness of SEC in the Canadian axSpA population. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of Canadian patients with axSpA aged 18 to 65 years within the CanSpA network who had received treatment with SEC. Patients were indexed on the first date of SEC initiation. Retention and clinical effectiveness were assessed at 12 months postindex. Clinical effectiveness was measured as the proportion in remission and change in disease activity using multiple clinical indices. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were included. Overall retention was estimated at 62.9%. Low disease activity (ie, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index < 4) was achieved in 29.2% of patients, and 2% had achieved remission based on the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index scores improved by more than 60% from baseline to 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results of this real-world study of Canadian patients with axSpA, one of the first of its kind, support the effectiveness of SEC for treatment of axSpA. The CanSpA network presents an opportunity to continue building and improving the real-world evidence base for treatment of Canadian patients with spondyloarthritis.

Real-World Retention and Clinical Effectiveness of Secukinumab for Psoriatic Arthritis: Results From the Canadian Spondyloarthritis Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an immune-mediated disease characterized by pain, stiffness, and swelling of peripheral joints, with an estimated prevalence in Canada of 0.45%. Treatment aims to minimize disease activity, reduce progression of damage, and improve quality of life. Secukinumab (SEC) is a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) that has demonstrated efficacy and safety for PsA in clinical trials; however, there is limited real-world evidence on its use in Canada. The objective of this study was to use the Canadian Spondyloarthritis (CanSpA) Research Network to describe real-world retention and effectiveness of SEC among Canadian patients with PsA. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of Canadian patients with PsA, 18 to 65 years of age, who attended a clinic of the CanSpA network and received treatment with SEC. Patients were indexed on the date they first initiated SEC. Retention was assessed at 12 months postindex. Clinical effectiveness was measured as the proportion of patients in remission and change in disease activity from baseline to 12 months using several clinical indices. RESULTS: In total, 213 patients were included. Overall retention was estimated at 73.6% at 12 months (81.8% for bDMARD- or targeted synthetic DMARD-naïve patients). Out of 110 patients, 17 (15.5%) were in remission based on the Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints, and 10 out of 70 patients (14.3%) were in remission based on the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score at 12 months. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improved by 65.8%; the tender joint count in 68 joints and the swollen joint count in 66 joints improved by 65.5% and 73.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first nationwide study that we know of to describe real-world use of SEC in Canada for PsA, and the results support its effectiveness in a Canadian real-world setting. The CanSpA network represents a unique opportunity to build and improve the real-world evidence base for SpA treatment in Canada.

Discontinuation of tofacitinib and TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of pooled data from two registries in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The similarity in retention of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and tofacitinib (TOFA) was previously reported separately by the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative and the Quebec cohort Rhumadata. However, because of small sample sizes in each registry, we aimed to confirm the findings by repeating the analysis of discontinuation of TNFi compared with TOFA, using pooled data from both these registries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Pooled data from two rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with RA starting TOFA or TNFi between June 2014 and December 2019 were included. A total of 1318 patients were included TNFi (n=825) or TOFA (n=493). OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to discontinuation was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Propensity score (PS) stratification (deciles) and PS weighting were used to estimate treatment effects. RESULTS: The mean disease duration in the TNFi group was shorter (8.9 years vs 13 years, p<0.001). Prior biological use (33.9% vs 66.9%, p<0.001) and clinical disease activity index (20.0 vs 22.1, p=0.02) were lower in the TNFi group.Discontinuation was reported in 309 (37.5%) and 181 (36.7%) TNFi and TOFA patients, respectively. After covariate adjustment using PS, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in discontinuation due to any reason HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.19, p=0.74)) as well as discontinuation due to ineffectiveness only HR=1.08 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, p=0.61)).TNFi users were less likely to discontinue due to adverse events (AEs) (adjusted HRs: 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74; p=0.001). Results remained consistent for firstline users. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled real-world data study, the discontinuation rates overall were similar. However, discontinuation due to AEs was higher in TOFA compared with TNFi users.

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

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Tofacitinib for Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational (CANTORAL) is the first Canadian prospective, observational study assessing tofacitinib. The objective was to assess effectiveness and safety for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Coprimary and secondary outcomes are reported from an interim analysis. METHODS: Patients initiating tofacitinib from October 2017 to July 2020 were enrolled from 45 Canadian sites. Coprimary outcomes (month 6) included the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA) and remission. Secondary outcomes (to month 18) included the CDAI and the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level to define LDA and remission; the proportions of patients achieving mild pain (visual analog scale <20 mm), and moderate (≥30%) and substantial (≥50%) pain improvements; and the proportions of patients achieving a Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) score greater or equal to normative values (≤0.25) and a HAQ DI score greater or equal to minimum clinically important difference (MCID) (≥0.22). Safety was assessed to month 36. RESULTS: Of 504 patients initiating tofacitinib, 44.4% received concomitant methotrexate. At month 6, 52.9% and 15.4% of patients were in CDAI-defined LDA and remission, respectively; a similar proportion of patients achieved outcomes by month 3 (first post-baseline assessment). By month 3, 27.2% and 41.7% of patients, respectively, were in DAS28-ESR-defined LDA and DAS28-CRP <3.2; 14.7% and 25.8% achieved DAS28-ESR remission and DAS28-CRP <2.6. By month 3, mild pain and moderate and substantial pain improvements occurred in 29.6%, 55.6%, and 42.9% of patients, respectively; 19.9% and 53.7% of patients achieved a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to normative values and a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to MCID, respectively. Outcomes were generally maintained to month 18. Incidence rates (events per 100 patient-years) for treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were 126.8, 11.9, and 14.5, respectively, and AEs of special interest were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib was associated with early and sustained improvement in RA signs and symptoms in real-world patients. Effectiveness and safety were consistent with the established tofacitinib clinical profile.

Heterogeneity in Patient Characteristics and Differences in Treatment Across 4 Canadian Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across 4 Canadian cohorts. METHODS: The 4 longitudinal cohorts included the following: the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH; n = 2878), Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI; n = 3734), RHUMADATA (Quebec, n = 2890), and the Rheum4U Precision Health Registry (Calgary, Alberta, n = 709). Data were from cohort inception (range 1998-2016) to 2020. Clinical characteristics and drug treatments were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 10,211 patients with RA were included. The percentage of patients who entered the cohort with early RA (2 yrs of disease at enrollment) ranged from 29% (Rheum4U) to 100% (CATCH). Mean age (55 yrs), sex (74% female), and seropositivity (69%) were similar between cohorts. At the time of initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, median Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) varied, ranging from 2.99 (Rheum4U) to 5.19 (CATCH), but were more similar at the time of the first DMARD switch (range 3.57-5.03), first biologic (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) use (range 4.01-4.67), and second bDMARD or tsDMARD (range 3.71-4.39). The initial DMARD was most commonly methotrexate, either in monotherapy (32%, range 18-40%) or dual therapy (34%, range 29-42%). The first DMARD switch was to another DMARD monotherapy in 20% (range 10-32%), dual therapy in 49% (range 39-56%), and bDMARD or tsDMARD in 24% (range 15-28%). The first bDMARD was an anti-tumor necrosis factor in 79% (range 78-82%). CONCLUSION: Canadian RA cohorts demonstrate some heterogeneity in treatment, which could reflect differences in inclusion criteria, calendar year, or regional differences. This project is a first step toward conducting harmonized analyses across Canadian RA cohorts.

Risk factors predictive of joint replacement in a 2-year multicentre clinical trial in knee osteoarthritis using MRI: results from over 6 years of observation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictive factors for total knee replacement (TKR) using data from MRI of knee osteoarthritis patients in a phase III multicentre disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD) study. METHODS: Knee osteoarthritis patients from a 2-year clinical trial evaluating licofelone versus naproxen were investigated for the incidence of TKR of the study knee. Patients (n=161) who completed the study according to protocol were selected. Incidence of TKR was assessed blindly to the treatment following telephone interviews (n=123). RESULTS: 18 TKR (14.6%) were performed in 4-7 years following enrolment in the original study. More TKR were performed within the naproxen than the licofelone group (61% vs 39%, p=0.232). Baseline score of bone marrow lesions (BML) in the medial compartment (p=0.0001), medial joint space width (JSW) as assessed by standardised radiographs (p=0.0008), presence of severe medial meniscal tear (p=0.004), medial meniscal extrusion (p=0.013), and C-reactive protein level (p=0.049) were strong predictors of TKR. Changes at the end of the study also yielded strong predictors: change in cartilage volume of the medial compartment (p=0.005) and of the global knee (p=0.034), reduction in the JSW of greater than 7% (p=0.009), and WOMAC pain (p=0.009) and function (p=0.023) scores. Multivariate analysis showed that baseline severe medial meniscal tear (p=0.023) and presence of medial BML (p=0.025) were the strongest independent long-term predictors of TKR. CONCLUSION: This study shows that in the context of osteoarthritis trials, clinical data and structural changes identified by MRI allow prediction of a 'hard' outcome such as TKR. The findings support the usefulness and predictive value of MRI in defining study outcome in DMOAD trials.

Monitoring the transition of patients on biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: Consensus guidance for pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Recent approvals for novel agents such as the small molecule Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), combined with the advent of biosimilars has widened the gamut of available therapeutic options in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This combined with the introduction of mandatory non- medical switches to biosimilars in some jurisdictions by both public and private payors has led to a significant increase in the volume of therapeutic changes for patients. Pharmacists are well positioned to ensure effective and safe transitions, however there is a significant unmet need for objective and subjective clinical guidance around therapy as well disease state monitoring in RA that facilitates best practices throughout the patient journey. OBJECTIVE: In this paper we aim to create a consensus derived monitoring algorithm for pharmacists to facilitate best practices throughout therapeutic transitions from originator biologic to other originator biologics, biosimilars, and Janus kinase inhibitors in RA. METHODS: The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to understand if consensus could be found among the participants. Clinically relevant questions were developed to capture solutions to the identified unmet need. The faculty considered the questions as individuals, and privately generated answers/ideas. After discussion and consideration, the participants ranked the ideas and established a consensus. RESULTS: Based on the outcome of the consensus discussions, an algorithm was created to help guide pharmacists through therapeutic transitions in RA. The tool covers important topics such as pre-transition considerations, avoiding the nocebo effect for biosimilars, specific considerations for each drug or class, monitoring efficacy, and when to refer. CONCLUSIONS: New classes of anti-rheumatic drugs including JAKi, along with the introduction of biosimilars are presenting more opportunity for therapeutic changes and monitoring in patients with RA. We hope our evidence-based consensus derived guidance tool will assist frontline pharmacists in supporting their patients to a successful therapeutic transition in RA.

Cost-utility analysis of second-line therapy with rituximab compared to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare direct costs and treatment utility associated with the second-line therapy with rituximab and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) using data from a prospective registry. METHODS: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and RA-related healthcare resource utilization data (biologic agents and visits to rheumatologists) were extracted from a registry (Quebec, Canada) for patients with RA (n = 129) who had to discontinue a first-line TNFi and were treated with rituximab, adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab as the second-line therapy between January 2007 and May 2016. A decision analytic model followed patients for 1 and 6 years. Treatment utility was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, which were calculated from HAQ-DI scores observed over the follow-up time. Quebec 2020 unit costs (Canadian Dollars, $) were used to value healthcare resource consumption. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to assess uncertainty around point-estimates of cost-utility. RESULTS: Over 1-year, rituximab and etanercept resulted in the effectiveness of 0.80 QALYs gained at the cost of $14,291and $18,880, respectively, and were dominant (i.e. associated with lower costs and more QALYs gained) compared to adalimumab (0.79 QALYs, $18,825) and infliximab (0.76 QALYs, $20,158). Over 6-years, rituximab (4.42 QALYs, $82,402) was dominant compared to adalimumab (4.30 QALYs, $101,420), etanercept (4.02 QALYs, $99,191), and infliximab (3.71 QALYs, $100,396). In the probabilistic analysis, rituximab was dominant over adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab with the probability of 0.51, 0.62, and 0.65, respectively. CONCLUSION: Real-world data revealed differences between alternative biologic agents used as the second-line therapy in terms of both treatment costs for the healthcare system and utility of treatment for patients. Therefore, new guidelines on the order of selecting and switching biologic agents should be explored.

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

BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical registries are essential tools to evaluate new therapies in a patient population that differs from those in randomized clinical trials. The objectives are to describe the profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with anti-TNF agents in Canadian routine care. METHODS: RA patients eligible for treatment with Infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GLM) or intravenous golimumab (GLM-IV) as per their respective Canadian product monographs were enrolled into the BioTRAC registry between 2002 and 2017. Study visits occurred at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in disease activity. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug survival. RESULTS: Of the 890 IFX-, 530 GLM- and 157 GLM-IV-treated patients, the proportion of females ranged from 77.0-86.6%, the mean ages from 55.8-57.7 and the mean disease duration from 6.5-8.6 years. A significant decrease in baseline disease duration and disease activity parameters (DAS, TJC, SJC, HAQ, AM stiffness, MDGA, PtGA, CRP, ESR) was observed over time. Treatment with IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV significantly improved all disease parameters over time. The incidence of AEs was 105, 113 and 82.6 /100 PYs and the incidence of SAEs was 11.7, 11.2 and 4.68 /100 PYs for IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated with an anti-TNFs over time shows the evolution of treatment modalities over time. All treatments significantly reduced disease activity and improved functionality in a similar fashion. The incidence of adverse events was consistent with the safety profiles of IFX and GLM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00741793 (Retrospectively registered on August 26, 2008).