Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral, reversible inhibitor of the Janus kinases JAK1 and JAK2 that may have therapeutic value in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, phase 3, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial in which 1307 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving background therapy with methotrexate were randomly assigned to one of three regimens in a 3:3:2 ratio: placebo (switched to baricitinib after 24 weeks), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily, or 40 mg of adalimumab (an anti-tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody) every other week. End-point measures evaluated after adjustment for multiplicity included 20% improvement according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20 response) (the primary end point), the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints (DAS28), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and the Simplified Disease Activity Index at week 12, as well as radiographic progression of joint damage as measured by the van der Heijde modification of the total Sharp score (mTSS) (range, 0 to 448, with higher scores indicating greater structural joint damage) at week 24. RESULTS: More patients had an ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib than with placebo (primary end point, 70% vs. 40%, P<0.001). All major secondary objectives were met, including inhibition of radiographic progression of joint damage, according to the mTSS at week 24 with baricitinib versus placebo (mean change from baseline, 0.41 vs. 0.90; P<0.001) and an increased ACR20 response rate at week 12 with baricitinib versus adalimumab (70% vs. 61%, P=0.014). Adverse events, including infections, were more frequent through week 24 with baricitinib and adalimumab than with placebo. Cancers were reported in five patients (two who received baricitinib and three who received placebo). Baricitinib was associated with reductions in neutrophil counts and increases in levels of creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had had an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib was associated with significant clinical improvements as compared with placebo and adalimumab. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01710358 .).

Clinical outcomes in patients switched from adalimumab to baricitinib due to non-response and/or study design: phase III data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who changed treatment from adalimumab to baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, during a phase III programme. METHODS: In phase III RA-BEAM, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo, baricitinib 4 mg once daily, or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly. At week 16 or subsequent visits, non-responders were rescued to open-label baricitinib 4 mg. At week 52, patients could enter a long-term extension (LTE) and continue on baricitinib or switch from adalimumab to baricitinib 4 mg with no adalimumab washout period. Percentage of patients achieving low disease activity and remission were assessed, along with physical function, patient's assessment of pain, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-five (7%) baricitinib-treated and 40 (12%) adalimumab-treated patients were rescued to baricitinib in RA-BEAM; 78% (381/487) of baricitinib-treated and 72% (238/330) of adalimumab-treated patients who were not rescued in RA-BEAM, entered the LTE and continued/were switched to baricitinib. In both baricitinib-rescued and adalimumab-rescued patients, there were significant improvements in all measures up to 12 weeks after rescue compared with the time of rescue. Patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib showed improvements in disease control through 12 weeks in the LTE. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and infections, including serious events, were similar for patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib and those who continued on baricitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from adalimumab to baricitinib (without adalimumab washout) was associated with improvements in disease control, physical function and pain during the initial 12 weeks postswitch, without an increase in TEAEs, serious adverse events or infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01710358, NCT01885078.

Relationship between disease activity and patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analyses of overall and Japanese results from two phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with different rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity levels and identify residual symptoms. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of overall and Japanese data from two randomized controlled trials including RA patients with previous inadequate responses to methotrexate (NCT01710358) or no/minimal previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment (NCT01711359) (sponsor: Eli Lilly and Company). Week 24 assessments were disease activity (Simplified Disease Activity Index, Disease Activity Score/Disease Activity Score 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and PROs (pain visual analog scale [VAS], morning joint stiffness [MJS], Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical and Mental Component Scores). RESULTS: Patients achieving remission/low disease activity (LDA) at Week 24 had larger/significant improvements from baseline in pain, MJS, disability, fatigue, and physical and emotional quality of life versus patients with high/moderate disease activity. Some patients achieving remission and LDA, reported residual pain (pain VAS >10 mm): 20.8-39.3% and 48.7-70.0% (overall study populations), 16.0-34.5% and 47.1-62.0% (Japanese patients). Residual MJS and fatigue were also reported. CONCLUSION: Remission/LDA were associated with improvements in PROs in overall and Japanese patient populations; however, some patients achieving remission had residual symptoms, including pain.

Determinants of Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A post hoc analysis of overall and Japanese results from phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the determinants of Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PhGA) in overall and Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from two large randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of overall and Japanese RA patients who had previous inadequate responses to methotrexate or who had no/minimal previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment. We examined correlations between PtGA/PhGA and tender joint count in 28 joints (TJC28), swollen joint count in 28 joints (SJC28), inflammatory markers, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and other patient-reported outcomes at baseline, Week 12, and Week 24. Determinants of PtGA/PhGA were identified. RESULTS: In overall populations, pain VAS was the main determinant of PtGA, whereas TJC28 was the main determinant of PhGA in both studies. In Japanese populations, consistent with overall populations, pain VAS was the main determinant of PtGA in both studies; in contrast to overall populations, pain VAS and SJC28/TJC28 played an important role in PhGA. CONCLUSION: Pain was the most important determinant of PtGA, whereas determinants of PhGA varied between populations/studies and were mostly explained by pain/joint counts. Physicians should be aware of patients' perceptions of disease activity when performing assessments/prescribing treatments.

Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 study of baricitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: secondary analyses from the RA-BEAM study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: In this double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo (n=488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n=487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n=330) with background MTX. PROs included the SF-36, EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) index scores and visual analogue scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Ttiredness and Worst Joint Pain. The primary study endpoint was at week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables. RESULTS: Compared with placebo and adalimumab, baricitinib showed statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, FACIT-F, SF-36 physical component score, EQ-5D index scores and WPAI-RA daily activity at week 12. Improvements were maintained for measures assessed to week 52. Statistically significant improvement in patient diary measures (MJS duration and severity), worst tiredness and worst joint pain were observed for baricitinib versus placebo and adalimumab at week 12 (p≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib provided significantly greater improvement in most PROs compared with placebo and adalimumab, including physical function MJS, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Improvement was maintained to the end of the study (week 52). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01710358.

Baricitinib in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs: results from the RA-BUILD study.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral, reversible, selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor. METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind 24-week study, 684 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARDs were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily, stratified by region and the presence of joint erosions. Endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20, primary endpoint), Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3. RESULTS: More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib 4 mg than with placebo (62% vs 39%, p≤0.001). Compared with placebo, statistically significant improvements in DAS28, SDAI remission, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, morning joint stiffness, worst joint pain and worst tiredness were observed. In a supportive analysis, radiographic progression of structural joint damage at week 24 was reduced with baricitinib versus placebo. Rates of adverse events during the treatment period and serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, were similar among groups (SAEs: 5% for baricitinib 4 mg and placebo). One patient had an adverse event of tuberculosis (baricitinib 4 mg); one patient had an adverse event of non-melanoma skin cancer (baricitinib 4 mg). Two deaths and three major adverse cardiovascular events occurred (placebo). Baricitinib was associated with a decrease in neutrophils and increases in low-density and high-density lipoprotein. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs, baricitinib was associated with clinical improvement and inhibition of progression of radiographic joint damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721057; Results.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON).

OBJECTIVES: To assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables. RESULTS: 527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721044; Results.

Psychometric properties of morning joint stiffness duration and severity measures in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the measurement properties of two single-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that assessed the length of time (in minutes) and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS) experienced each day. METHODS: Data from two Phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled (and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies assessing the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients among stable patients (coefficient range for both studies: 0.88 to 0.93). In support of construct validity, moderate correlations were evidenced between Duration of MJS and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, whereas moderate-to-strong correlations were evidenced between these same patient- and clinician-reported assessments and Severity of MJS. Statistically significant differences between the median and mean values of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS for differing categories of RA disease severity supported known-groups validity. Finally, large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients defined as responders versus non-responders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 criteria supported the responsiveness of both PROs. CONCLUSION: Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs demonstrated reliability, validity, and responsiveness in adults with moderately to severely active RA, supporting the measurement of these key symptoms in clinical trials.

Psychometric properties of the single-item measure, severity of worst tiredness, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to treatment change of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data from two Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled (RA-BUILD; and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies of the efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active RA were used. The psychometric properties of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, were assessed, including test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness, using other patient- and clinician-reported outcomes frequently assessed in RA patients. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the Severity of Worst Tiredness was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients (0.89 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.91). Moderate-to-large correlations were observed between this patient-reported outcome (PRO) and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, supporting construct validity of the measure (│r│ ≥ 0.41). The instrument also displayed known-groups validity through statistically significant differences between mean values of the Severity of Worst Tiredness defined using other indicators of RA severity. Finally, responsiveness was supported by large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients comparing responders and nonresponders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria. CONCLUSION: The Severity of Worst Tiredness PRO demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, and responsiveness in clinical trials of adults with moderately to severely active RA and is fit for purpose in this patient population.

Defining Pain That Does Not Interfere With Activities Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize the distribution of noninterfering pain (defined as the pain intensity level at which individuals can function without interference) across different aspects of life among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 2) identify clinical characteristics associated with differing levels of noninterfering pain. METHODS: Patients with RA in FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases completed 8 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference item bank that asked about interference with activities. If subjects reported pain interference, they were asked, "At what level would pain no longer interfere with this activity?" on a scale of 0 to 10. Subjects were also asked, "At what level of pain would you be able to do everything you want to do?" Multiple linear regression analyses examined associations between clinical characteristics and noninterfering pain. RESULTS: A total of 3,949 patients with RA completed the questionnaires. Pain interference was most common for daily activities and least common for ability to concentrate. The mean ± SD level at which pain no longer interfered with activities ranged from 2.7 ± 2.1 for ability to fall/stay asleep to 3.1 ± 2.0 for social activities. Overall, the mean ± SD threshold for noninterfering pain was 2.8 ± 1.9. The mean ± SD level of pain at which patients could do everything they wanted to do was 2.3 ± 1.9. More severe pain intensity was associated with higher noninterfering pain. CONCLUSION: The mean pain level that did not interfere with activities was 3. High pain intensity was associated with high self-reported noninterfering pain.

Health Care Effect of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Use on Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended as the standard of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) due to their ability to reduce pain and disability; however, DMARD use is low in some subgroups of the RA population. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with DMARD use in the overall cohort of patients with RA and newly diagnosed RA patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used claims from a large national health plan. Use of DMARDs was measured according to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) as the proportion of patients with RA receiving DMARDs. Following HEDIS measure technical specifications, we identified patients aged 18-89 years with continuous enrollment during 2014 (measurement year) with ≥ 2 claims for RA outpatient visits and/or discharges on different dates between January and November 2014. Additionally, we identified a subset of patients newly diagnosed with RA in 2014 based on absence of any claims for RA or DMARDs in 2013. Descriptive analyses and bivariate associations were used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with RA with or without DMARD use in 2014. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared in 2014 for patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans during both 2014 and 2015. Regression models were used to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with DMARD use in 2014 and the effect on HCRU and costs. RESULTS: Among the 33,880 patients identified with RA in 2014, most patients received a DMARD (75.2%); 29.4% of patients newly diagnosed with RA had been treated with DMARDs in 2014. Patients with DMARD use, on average, were younger (aged 67 years ± 10.7 vs. 69 years ± 10.7) and healthier (Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index [DCCI] 2.4 ± 1.9 vs. 2.6 ± 2.1) and included a greater proportion of women (75.9% vs. 71.0%) than those with no DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001) was associated with 14.5% fewer hospitalizations and 18.0% fewer emergency department visits. Although total costs increased by 15.0% with use of DMARDs, when the cost of DMARDs was excluded, the total cost decreased by 13.7% (P < 0.0001). Female gender (32.2%), higher claims-based index for RA severity score (47.0%), higher RxRisk-V score (26.7%), visit to a rheumatologist (34.3%), and use of glucocorticoids (17.7%) increased the odds of DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of certain classes of medication, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (12.3%), opioids (19.5%), antidepressants (20.0%), muscle relaxants (12.5%), and anticonvulsants (15.5%), were associated with lower use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with and without DMARD use, which can potentially inform treatment decisions regarding DMARD use as deemed necessary by the provider. Future research should investigate the reasons for lack of treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Boytsov, Saverno, Zhang, and Gaich are employees of Eli Lilly. Nair, Bhattacharya, Abbott, and Dixon are employees of Humana, which received funding from Eli Lilly to complete this research.

Patient Perceptions of Unmet Medical Need in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower®, an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80. RESULTS: Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0-10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Use of daily electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) diaries in randomized controlled trials for rheumatoid arthritis: rationale and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with significantly diminished health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered important in RA; however, some symptoms such as morning joint stiffness (MJS) and fatigue that are considered important by patients are not captured by the American College of Rheumatology "core set" measures for RA trials. The US Food and Drug Administration has endorsed electronic capture of clinical trial data including PROs, and electronic PRO (ePRO) systems may lead to more accurate and complete data capture, improved compliance, and patient acceptance compared with paper-based methods. Our objective was to assess the implementation of ePRO measures of Duration and Severity of MJS, Severity of Worst Tiredness, and Severity of Worst Joint Pain in baricitinib RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: A daily electronic diary (handheld device; Invivodata®, Inc.) was utilized to capture PRO data in the RCTs. Three "reporting window" options were incorporated to accommodate differences in patients' routine daily schedules, and alarms were programmed for each reporting window. Duration of MJS was recorded in "hours and minutes," and Severity of MJS, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain were captured on a 0 to 10 rating scale, with a higher score indicating more severe symptoms. The patients and site staff were trained to use the daily electronic diary. RESULTS: Patients with moderately to severely active RA used the daily electronic diary in the RA-BEAM study (N = 1305) and RA-BUILD study (N = 684). The average compliance, calculated as total days completed by patients compared with total days expected to complete the diary, through Week 12 was high (RA-BEAM 94% patients; RA-BUILD 93% patients), potentially attributable to appropriate training, clarity of instructions, simple user interface, and electronic device design. Identified process challenges included non-timely issuance of the device, low battery, inadequate training of patients before data collection, inappropriate diary set-up, and first response entry 1 day after the baseline visit. CONCLUSIONS: High compliance rates support the use of the daily electronic PRO diary in large RCTs. Despite the anticipated issues, the daily electronic diary is expected to reduce recall bias and improve the quality of PRO data collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RA-BEAM ( NCT01710358 ) and RA-BUILD ( NCT01721057 ).

Effect of Baricitinib and Adalimumab in Reducing Pain and Improving Function in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Low Disease Activity: Exploratory Analyses from RA-BEAM.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may experience residual pain and functional impairment despite good control of disease activity. This study compared improvements in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA after 24 weeks' treatment with baricitinib, adalimumab or placebo in the 52-week RA-BEAM phase III study. Adults with active RA and inadequate response to methotrexate received baricitinib 4 mg once daily, adalimumab 40 mg every two weeks or placebo, with background methotrexate. Patients (N = 1010) were categorised as in remission, in remission or low disease activity, or not in remission or low disease activity at week 24. For patients in remission or low disease activity (n = 310), improvements in mean pain and physical function scores at week 24 were significantly greater with baricitinib than placebo (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively) and adalimumab (p < 0.05 for both). For both outcomes, differences between adalimumab and placebo were not significant. The proportions of patients in remission or low disease activity with minimal or no pain and with normalised physical function were numerically greater with baricitinib than placebo. Baricitinib 4 mg once daily provided enhanced improvement in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA, suggesting it may produce effects beyond immunomodulation.

Correction to: Use of daily electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) diaries in randomized controlled trials for rheumatoid arthritis: rationale and implementation.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us of an error in language used in the text.

Relative Impact of Pain and Fatigue on Work Productivity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the RA-BEAM Baricitinib Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To explore the relationship of pain and fatigue with daily activity and work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from the baricitinib clinical trial, RA-BEAM. METHODS: In RA-BEAM, a double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomized 3:3:2 to placebo (n = 488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n = 330) with background methotrexate. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured fatigue and the pain visual analog scale (0-100 mm) assessed pain. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA measured daily activity and work productivity. At weeks 12 and 24, pain was assessed using pain reduction (< 30%, 30% to < 50%, ≥ 50%) and overall pain score; clinically relevant FACIT-F changes were assessed by values < 3.56 and ≥ 3.56 and the FACIT-F normative value score (< 40.1, ≥ 40.1). Pairwise comparisons between pain/fatigue reduction groups were assessed using ANCOVA with pooled data on daily activity and work productivity. A mediator analysis with pain, fatigue, and disease activity measured their contribution to daily activity and work productivity. Data were pooled from all patients for most analyses, and baricitinib-treated patients were assessed as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Reductions in pain (≥ 50%) and fatigue (≥ 3.56) had significant (p ≤ 0.001) effects on daily activity and work productivity improvement at weeks 12 and 24. Reductions in pain, fatigue, and disease activity accounted for most of the improvements in daily activity and work productivity. At the lowest levels of remaining pain (≤ 10 mm) at weeks 12 and 24, however, fatigue did not appear to impact work productivity. Similar trends were observed with baricitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in pain and fatigue were associated with improved daily activity and work productivity for all RA patients and for baricitinib-treated patients in RA-BEAM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01710358. FUNDING: Incyte Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.

Achieving Pain Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Baricitinib or Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate: Results from the RA-BEAM Trial.

The purpose of the study was to assess the proportion of patients who achieve pain relief thresholds, the time needed to reach the thresholds, and the relationship between pain and inflammation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate in RA-BEAM (NCT0170358). A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted, comparing baricitinib (N = 487), adalimumab (N = 330), and placebo (N = 488) plus methotrexate. Pain was evaluated by patient's assessment on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The following were assessed through a 24-week placebo-controlled period: the proportion of patients who achieved ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief, the time to achieve these pain relief thresholds, remaining pain (VAS ≤ 10 mm, ≤20 mm, or ≤40 mm), and the relationship between inflammation markers and pain relief. Baricitinib-treated patients were more likely (p < 0.05) to achieve ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief than placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients, as early as Week 1 vs. placebo and at Week 4 vs. adalimumab. A greater proportion of baricitinib-treated patients achieved ≤20 mm or ≤40 mm remaining pain vs. placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients. Baricitinib-treated patients tended to demonstrate consistent pain relief independent of levels of inflammation control. In RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib provided greater and more rapid pain relief than adalimumab and placebo. Analyses suggest the relationship between inflammation and pain may be different for baricitinib and adalimumab treatments.

Examination of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Association with TNF-Inhibitor Treatment Response: Results from a US Observational Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy is challenging when the patient and physician prioritize different goals. This study aimed to "translate" improvements in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to concepts that resonate with patients (such as pain, fatigue, morning stiffness) by examining the association between changes in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating their first biologic treatment. METHODS: Patients in the Corrona registry with moderate or high disease activity (M/HDA) (defined by a CDAI score > 10), prior use of at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), 12-month follow-up, and initiating their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) between 1 January 2006 through 1 November 2015 were identified. Patients were stratified on the basis of CDAI during follow-up, and changes in PROs were compared with a test of trend using CDAI-defined groups. RESULTS: Of 1570 patients, 37% achieved sustained remission or low disease activity (remission/LDA), 15% had improving remission/LDA, 12% had worsening M/HDA, and 35% were in sustained M/HDA during 12-month follow-up. Those in sustained remission/LDA had greater magnitude of improvement in physical functioning, pain, fatigue, morning stiffness, patient's global assessment, and quality of life compared with patients in sustained M/HDA (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in disease activity was associated with improvements in PROs, with the greatest improvements seen in those who achieved sustained remission/LDA. These results reinforce the benefits of a treat-to-target approach to RA care and may improve dialogue between patients and providers, support shared decision-making, and reduce "clinical inertia." FUNDING: Corrona, LLC.

Estimating the response and economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Taiwan using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in Taiwan utilizing the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database (NHIRD) have estimated the direct healthcare costs of RA patients, but they have not focused on patients on bDMARDs, or considered patients' response to therapy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of inadequate response for patients newly treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) as well as their costs and resource use. METHODS: Data were from the catastrophic illness file within the NHIRD from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2013. Patients with RA, which was categorized by the presence of a catastrophic illness card, that were previously bDMARD-naïve, were included in this study if they initiated their first bDMARD during the index period. The index period included all of 2010, a pre-index period consisting of the index date- 365 days, and a follow-up period including the index date to 365 days post-index, were also included. Previously biologically-naïve patients were indexed into the study on the date of their first claim for a bDMARD. A validated algorithm was used to examine the rate of inadequate response (IR) in the biologically-naïve cohort of patients. Inadequate responders met one or more of the following criteria during their year of follow-up: low adherence (proportion of days covered <0.80); switched to or added a second bDMARD; added a new conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD); received ≥1 glucocorticoid injection; or increased oral glucocorticoid dosing. All-cause mean annual direct costs and resource use were measured in the year of follow-up. Costs were converted from NT$ to USD using 1 NT$ = 0.033 USD. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients with RA initiated their first bDMARD (54% etanercept and 46% adalimumab) in 2010. After one year of follow-up, 32% (n = 258) were classified as stable, 66% (n = 540) had an IR, and 2% (n = 20) were lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period mean annual total direct costs were $16,136 for stable patients compared to $14,154 for patients with IR. Mean annual non-medication direct costs were $937 for stable patients and $1,574 for patients with IR. Mean annual hospitalizations were higher for patients with IR (0.46) compared to stable patients (0.10) during the one year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients that were previously naïve to bDMARDs had an IR to their first bDMARD during the year of follow-up. Patients with an IR had numerically increased all-cause resource utilization and non-medication costs during the follow-up period compared to patients with stable disease. This level of IR suggests an unmet need in the RA treatment paradigm.

Comparative effects of raloxifene and alendronate on fracture outcomes in postmenopausal women with low bone mass.

UNLABELLED: The double-blind, randomized raloxifene alendronate comparison trial was the first study designed to compare two osteoporosis therapies head-to-head for fracture risk reduction. The original protocol planned to treat 3000 postmenopausal women with alendronate 10 mg/day (ALN) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (RLX) for 5 years, and to recruit women (50-80 years old) with a femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T-score between -2.5 and -4.0, inclusive, no prevalent vertebral fractures, and no prior bone-active agent use. The trial was stopped early, due to difficulty in finding treatment-naïve women to meet enrollment goals within the planned timeline, resulting in insufficient power to show non-inferiority between therapies in the primary endpoint (number of women with >or=1 new osteoporotic vertebral or nonvertebral fracture). Except for vertebral fractures, fracture analyses were based upon 1412 of the 1423 women randomized (mean age of 66 years). After 312+/-254 days (mean+/-SD), 22 women in the ALN group and 20 in the RLX group had new vertebral or nonvertebral fractures. Four women in the ALN group and none in the RLX group had moderate/severe vertebral fractures, a pre-specified endpoint (P=0.04). Lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD were increased from baseline at 2 years in each group (P<0.001), with greater increases in the ALN group (each P<0.05). Similar numbers of women in each group had >or=1 adverse event and discontinued due to an adverse event. The only adverse events with an incidence that differed between groups were colonoscopy, diarrhea, and nausea; each was more common with ALN treatment (each P<0.05). One woman in each group had a venous thromboembolic event. One case of breast cancer occurred in each group. In summary, as this trial was terminated early, there was insufficient power to compare the fracture risks between alendronate and raloxifene. Safety profiles were as expected from clinical trial and post-marketing reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00035971.