Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive.

BACKGROUND: The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive. METHODS: Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used. RESULTS: In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort..

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive

Abstract Background The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive. Methods Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used. Results In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045). Conclusion In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort. .

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review. METHODS: We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. RESULTS: Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Patient and clinician perspectives of a remote monitoring program for COVID-19 and lessons for future programs.

COVID Watch is a remote patient monitoring program implemented during the pandemic to support home dwelling patients with COVID-19. The program conferred a large survival advantage. We conducted semi-structured interviews of 85 patients and clinicians using COVID Watch to understand how to design such programs even better. Patients and clinicians found COVID Watch to be comforting and beneficial, but both groups desired more clarity about the purpose and timing of enrollment and alternatives to text-messages to adapt to patients' preferences as these may have limited engagement and enrollment among marginalized patient populations. Because inclusiveness and equity are important elements of programmatic success, future programs will need flexible and multi-channel human-to-human communication pathways for complex clinical interactions or for patients who do not desire tech-first approaches.

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

INTRODUCTION: Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding  the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM. RESULTS: Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

Patient and clinician perspectives of a remote monitoring program for COVID-19 and lessons for future programs.

COVID Watch is a remote patient monitoring program implemented during the pandemic to support home dwelling patients with COVID-19. The program conferred a large survival advantage. We conducted semi-structured interviews of 85 patients and clinicians using COVID Watch to understand how to design such programs even better. Patients and clinicians found COVID Watch to be comforting and beneficial, but both groups desired more clarity about the purpose and timing of enrollment and alternatives to text-messages to adapt to patients’ preferences as these may have limited engagement and enrollment among marginalized patient populations. Because inclusiveness and equity are important elements of programmatic success, future programs will need flexible and multi-channel human-to-human communication pathways for complex clinical interactions or patients who do not desire tech-first approaches.

US local public health department spending between 2008 and 2016 did not increase for communities in need.

BACKGROUND: Greater US local public health department (LPHD) spending has been associated with decreases in population-wide mortality. We examined the association between changes in LPHD spending between 2008 and 2016 and county-level sociodemographic indicators of public health need. METHODS: Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the association between changes in county-level per-capita LPHD spending and 2008 sociodemographic indicators of interest: percent of population that was over 65 years old, Black, Hispanic, in poverty, unemployed, and uninsured. A second model assessed the relationship between changes in LPHD spending and sociodemographic shifts between 2008 and 2016. RESULTS: LPHD spending increases were associated with higher percentage points of 2008 adults over 65 years of age (+$0.53 per higher percentage point; 95% CI: +$0.01 to +$1.06) and unemployment (-$1.31; 95% CI: -$2.34 to -$0.27). Spending did not increase for communities with a higher proportion of people who identified as Black or Hispanic, or those with a greater proportion of people in poverty or uninsured, using either baseline or sociodemographic shifts between 2008 and 2016. CONCLUSION: Future LPHD funding decisions should consider increasing investments in counties serving disadvantaged communities to counteract the social, political, and structural barriers which have historically prevented these communities from achieving better health.

Comparative Effectiveness of an Automated Text Messaging Service for Monitoring COVID-19 at Home.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection can be safely managed at home, the need for hospitalization can arise suddenly. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether enrollment in an automated remote monitoring service for community-dwelling adults with COVID-19 at home ("COVID Watch") was associated with improved mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Mid-Atlantic academic health system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 23 March and 30 November 2020. INTERVENTION: The COVID Watch service consists of twice-daily, automated text message check-ins with an option to report worsening symptoms at any time. All escalations were managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by dedicated telemedicine clinicians. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty- and 60-day outcomes of patients enrolled in COVID Watch were compared with those of patients who were eligible to enroll but received usual care. The primary outcome was death at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Treatment effects were estimated with propensity score-weighted risk adjustment models. RESULTS: A total of 3488 patients enrolled in COVID Watch and 4377 usual care control participants were compared with propensity score weighted models. At 30 days, COVID Watch patients had an odds ratio for death of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.72), with 1.8 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.5 to 3.1) (P = 0.005); at 60 days, the difference was 2.5 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (CI, 0.9 to 4.0) (P = 0.002). Patients in COVID Watch had more telemedicine encounters, ED visits, and hospitalizations and presented to the ED sooner (mean, 1.9 days sooner [CI, 0.9 to 2.9 days]; all P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Observational study with the potential for unobserved confounding. CONCLUSION: Enrollment of outpatients with COVID-19 in an automated remote monitoring service was associated with reduced mortality, potentially explained by more frequent telemedicine encounters and more frequent and earlier presentation to the ED. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond to treatments differently based on their underlying serology and biomarker status, but real-world data comparing treatment responses to abatacept versus other non-TNFi biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs by anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status remain limited. We assessed the association between ACPA status and response to treatment in patients with RA. METHODS: Adults from CorEvitas' RA Registry were identified who initiated abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, and had ACPA measured at/prior to treatment initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit. Three cohorts were included: abatacept/rituximab (2006-2019), abatacept/tocilizumab (2010-2019), and abatacept/tofacitinib (2012-2019). Patient characteristics at initiation were compared by ACPA status (positive [+], anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 [anti-CCP2] ≥ 20 U/ml; negative [-], anti-CCP2 < 20 U/ml). Outcomes over 6 months: changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and proportion of patients achieving a clinical response. Adjusted mean differences and odds ratios were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 982 abatacept, 246 rituximab, 404 tocilizumab, and 429 tofacitinib initiators were identified. ACPA+ (vs. ACPA-) patients had longer disease duration and more erosive disease. During most time periods adjusted mean changes in CDAI, mHAQ, and PGA scores and the proportion of patients achieving a clinical response were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating abatacept. Adjusted mean change in PGA score and patient fatigue were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating rituximab. No significant differences were seen by ACPA status for patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiated abatacept or rituximab and were ACPA+ had a greater clinical response at 6-month follow-up post index compared to patients who were ACPA- treated with the same biologic.

Stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding prostate cancer among Black and Latino men and women.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities in prostate cancer (PC) are thought to reflect the complex interplay of socioeconomics, environment and biology. The potential impact of beliefs and perceptions about PC among Black and Latino populations on clinical disparities are not well understood. This qualitative study was conducted to assess current prevalent and pervasive stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding PC among Blacks and Latinos living in a large metropolitan area, thereby identifying potentially modifiable barriers to care. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through four separate focus groups of self-identified Black and Latino adult men and women living in Philadelphia to better understand their perceptions of PC diagnosis, screening and treatment. Each focus group was single-sex and conducted by racial/ethnic group in order to assess possible differences in beliefs about PC based on gender and racial/ethnic affiliation. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by trained research assistants and qualitative data analysis was conducted using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: There were a total of 34 participants: 19 Hispanics/Latinos and 15 Blacks, with equal numbers of men and women (n=17). Median age was 57 years (range: 18 to 85 years). Dominant themes that emerged with respect to PC diagnosis included the stigma surrounding this condition and the perceived role of an "unhealthy lifestyle" and certain sexual behaviors as risk factors for PC development. While the majority of participants acknowledged the importance of PC screening and early detection, discussion centered around the barriers to both the interest in seeking medical care and the likelihood of securing it. These barriers included misunderstanding of PC etiology, distrust of the medical profession, and financial/access limitations. Men expressed substantial confusion about PC screening guidelines. In the Black female group, the role of faith and religion in the course of disease was a major theme. Both Black and Latina females discussed the role of fear and avoidance around PC screening and treatment, as well as the prevalence of misinformation about PC in their familial and social communities. CONCLUSION: Black and Latino focus groups revealed the existence of cultural beliefs, misunderstandings and fears pertaining to PC which could influence health-related behaviors. Some themes were common across groups; others suggested racial and gender predilections. Future targeted efforts focused on directly addressing prevalent misperceptions among underserved communities in urban settings could help to improve health literacy and equity in PC outcomes in these populations.

Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Treatment Trials Accrual: A Closer Look at Participation Rates.

OBJECTIVES: Low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials are commonly reported, raising concerns about missed opportunities to engage patients in treatment trials. We reviewed eligibility for and enrollment in pancreatic cancer clinical trials for patients seen at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center during 1 year, to calculate participation rates with detailed information to determine the best-case participation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Abramson Cancer Center Cancer Registry, clinical trial protocols, and electronic medical records (EMRs) to determine eligibility for all available pancreatic cancer clinical trials. Patient characteristics and reasons for ineligibility were abstracted from EMRs. We then computed participation rates based on enrollment in trials using EMR and clinical trials monitoring data. RESULTS: Of 233 new pancreatic cancer patients in 2014, 47 or 20% enrolled in a clinical trial (enrollment fraction). According to the EMR, of the 66 patients who were eligible for a trial, 54 (82% of eligible) accepted and 47 (71% of eligible) ultimately enrolled in a trial, 8 (12% of eligible) declined, and 4 (6% of eligible) had no record of patient decision. Enrollment in a trial by both the EMR and clinical trials database was confirmed for 71% of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that 71% of newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients who were eligible for a trial were enrolled in a treatment trial. We contend that in-depth analysis, rather than enrollment fraction, should be used to inform the gap between actual participation and optimal clinical trial participation for cancer patients.

Disease activity and patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren's syndrome enrolled in a large observational US registry.

The objective of this study was to compare rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national sample of patients with RA with/without Sjögren's syndrome (SS). Adults with RA from a large observational US registry (Corrona RA) with known SS status between 22 April 2010 and 31 July 2018 and a visit 12 (± 3) months after index date were identified (n = 36,256/52,757). SS status: determined from a yes/no variable reported at enrolment into the Corrona RA registry and follow-up visits. Index date: date that SS status was recorded (yes/no). Patients received biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as part of standard care. Patients with RA only were followed for ≥ 12 months to confirm the absence of SS. Patients were frequency- and propensity-score matched (PSM) 1:1 and stratified by disease duration and treatment response-associated variables, respectively. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and PROs 12 months after index visit were compared in patients with and without SS. Baseline characteristics in 283 pairs of PSM patients were balanced. Mean change in CDAI score was numerically lower in patients with RA and SS than patients with RA only (8.8 vs 9.3). Reductions in PROs of pain, fatigue and stiffness were two- to threefold lower for patients with RA and SS versus RA only. Reductions in RA disease activity and RA-related PROs were lower in patients with RA and SS versus those with RA only. Our data indicate that SS adds to treatment challenges; physicians may wish to consider SS status when managing patients with RA.

Prevalence of Sjögren's syndrome associated with rheumatoid arthritis in the USA: an observational study from the Corrona registry.

The objectives of this analysis were to assess the prevalence of Sjögren's syndrome (SS) associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare baseline characteristics of patients with RA with and without SS. Adult patients with RA from a large observational US registry (Corrona RA), with ≥ 1 visit for assessment of SS status between 22 April 2010 and 28 February 2018, were considered. Patients with RA with versus without SS were compared. SS status was determined from a yes/no variable and reported at enrollment into the Corrona RA registry and follow-up visits. Outcomes were unadjusted prevalence of SS in patients with RA, prevalence of SS by RA disease duration, and baseline characteristics in patients with RA by SS status. Of 24,528 eligible patients, 7870 (32.1%) had a diagnosis of RA and SS. The unadjusted overall rate for SS prevalence in patients with RA was 0.30 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.31). SS prevalence increased with increasing RA duration. Patients with RA with versus without SS were more likely to be older, female, and seropositive; had a longer RA duration; higher disease activity; and a higher incidence of comorbidities (hypertension, cardiovascular disease, malignancies, and serious infections), erosive disease, and subcutaneous nodules at index date. Patients with RA and SS had a higher disease burden than those with RA only. The prevalence of SS increased as duration of RA increased. RA with SS was associated with seropositivity, more severe RA, extra-articular manifestations, and comorbidities.Key Points• The overall prevalence of SS among patients with RA was 30%.• The prevalence of SS increased with increasing RA disease duration.• Identifying specific clinical characteristics of patients with RA with SS, such as a greater incidence of extra-articular manifestations and comorbidities, may help clinicians to better characterize this patient population.

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Are Anti-CCP Positive in the United States Corrona Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are highly specific serological biomarkers that are indicative of a poor prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different mechanisms of action may vary, based on patients' serostatus. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in patients with RA who were anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive (anti-CCP+). METHODS: Abatacept or TNFi initiators with anti-CCP+ status (≥ 20 U/ml) at or prior to treatment initiation were identified from a large observational US cohort (1 December 2005-31 August 2016). Using propensity score matching (1:1), stratified by prior TNFi use (0, 1 and ≥ 2), effectiveness at 6 months after initiation was evaluated. Primary outcome was mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. Secondary outcomes included achievement of remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), low disease activity/remission (CDAI ≤ 10), modified American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire score. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between 330 pairs of abatacept and TNFi initiators (biologic naïve, n = 97; TNFi experienced, n = 233) were well balanced with absolute value standardized differences of ≤ 0.1. Both overall, and in the biologic-naïve cohort, there were no significant differences in mean change in CDAI score at 6 months. However, in the TNFi-experienced cohort, there was a significantly greater improvement in CDAI score at 6 months with abatacept versus TNFi initiators (p = 0.033). Secondary outcomes showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in clinical disease activity were seen in anti-CCP+ abatacept and TNFi initiators. TNFi-experienced anti-CCP+ patients with RA had more improvement in disease activity with abatacept versus TNFis, whereas outcomes were similar between treatments in the overall population and in biologic-naïve patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01625650. FUNDING: This study is sponsored by Corrona, LLC and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the publication of this manuscript.

Do Poor Prognostic Factors in Rheumatoid Arthritis Affect Treatment Choices and Outcomes? Analysis of a US Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by number of poor prognostic factors (PPF: functional limitation, extraarticular disease, seropositivity, erosions) and evaluate treatment acceleration, clinical outcomes, and work status over 12 months by number of PPF. METHODS: Using the Corrona RA registry (January 2005-December 2015), biologic-naive patients with diagnosed RA having 12-month (± 3 mos) followup were identified and categorized by PPF (0-1, 2, ≥ 3). Changes in medication, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and work status (baseline-12 mos) were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 3458 patients who met the selection criteria: 1489 (43.1%), 1214 (35.1%), and 755 (21.8%) had 0-1, 2, or ≥ 3 PPF, respectively. At baseline, patients with ≥ 3 PPF were older, and had longer RA duration and higher CDAI versus those with 0-1 PPF. In 0-1, 2, and ≥ 3 PPF groups, respectively, 20.9%, 23.2%, and 26.5% of patients received ≥ 1 biologic (p = 0.011). Biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD) use was similar in patients with/without PPF (p = 0.57). After adjusting for baseline CDAI, mean (standard error) change in CDAI was -4.95 (0.24), -4.53 (0.27), and -2.52 (0.34) for 0-1, 2, and ≥ 3 PPF groups, respectively. More patients were working at baseline but not at 12-month followup in 2 (13.9%) and ≥ 3 (12.5%) versus 0-1 (7.3%) PPF group. CONCLUSION: Despite high disease activity and worse clinical outcomes, number of PPF did not significantly predict biologic/tsDMARD use. This may warrant reconsideration of the importance of PPF in treat-to-target approaches.

Long-term pharmacodynamic effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients undergoing early PCI.

The long-term pharmacodynamic effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after fibrinolytic therapy is unknown. From May 2014 to August 2016, 212 patients undergoing PCI within 24 h of Tenecteplase (TNK), Aspirin, and Clopidogrel for ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized at four Canadian sites to receive additional Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor initiated prior to PCI. The platelet reactivity units (PRU) were measured with the VerifyNow Assay before study drug administration (baseline), at 4 and 24 h post PCI, and follow-up appointment. A mixed-model analysis with time as the repeated measure and drug as the between-subjects factor was calculated using 2 separate 1 × 4 ANOVAs, with students t-tests used to compare drugs within each time point. Complete clinical follow-up data (median 115.0 days; IQR 80.3-168.8) was available in 50 patients (23.6%) randomized to either Clopidogrel (n = 23) or Ticagrelor (n = 27). Analyses revealed significant decreases in PRU from baseline to 4 h (261.4 vs. 71.7; Mdiff = - 189.7; p < 0.001) to 24 h (71.7 vs. 27.7; Mdiff = - 44.0; p < 0.001) to end of follow-up (27.7 vs.17.9; Mdiff = - 9.9. p = 0.016) for those randomized to Ticagrelor and significant decreases in PRU only from baseline to 4 h (271.3 vs. 200.8; Mdiff = - 70.5, p = < 0.001) in patients receiving Clopidogrel, and a significantly greater proportion of patients with adequate platelet inhibition (PRU < 208) on long-term follow-up (Clopidogrel, 82.6% vs. Ticagrelor, 100.0%; p = 0.038). Our results demonstrate that in patients undergoing PCI within 24 h of fibrinolysis for STEMI, Ticagrelor provides prolonged platelet inhibition compared with Clopidogrel.

Effect of Anticitrullinated Protein Antibody Status on Response to Abatacept or Antitumor Necrosis Factor-α Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A US National Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Assess whether baseline anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) status is associated with treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating abatacept (ABA) or a tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS: Using the Corrona RA registry, patients were identified who initiated ABA or a TNFi (June 2004-January 2015), had a followup visit 6 months (± 3 mos) after initiation, and anti-CCP measured at or prior to initiation. Primary outcome was mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) from initiation to 6 months. Treatment response was evaluated based on a typical patient profile (female, aged 57 yrs, body mass index of 30 kg/m2, baseline CDAI of 20, 1 prior biologic, and no comorbidities other than RA). Secondary outcomes included remission and low disease activity. RESULTS: There were 566 ABA initiators [anti-CCP+ (≥ 20 units/ml): n = 362; anti-CCP- (< 20 units/ml): n = 204] and 1715 TNFi initiators (anti-CCP+: n = 1113; anti-CCP-: n = 602). Differences between treatment groups included baseline disease duration, CDAI, and prior biologic use. At 6 months, anti-CCP+ ABA initiators were associated with significantly greater CDAI response versus anti-CCP- ABA initiators; no significant difference was observed for TNFi initiators. When considering a typical RA patient profile, CDAI response was greater in anti-CCP+ versus anti-CCP- ABA initiators; anti-CCP+ versus anti-CCP- TNFi initiators were similar. Secondary outcome responses were also greater in anti-CCP+ versus anti-CCP- ABA initiators; TNFi initiators did not differ by anti-CCP status. CONCLUSION: In a US-based clinical practice setting, anti-CCP status was associated with a differential treatment response to ABA, but not TNFi.

Identification of biomarkers of response to abatacept in patients with SLE using deconvolution of whole blood transcriptomic data from a phase IIb clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise patients with active SLE based on pretreatment gene expression-defined peripheral immune cell patterns and identify clusters enriched for potential responders to abatacept treatment. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used baseline peripheral whole blood transcriptomic data from patients in a phase IIb trial of intravenous abatacept (~10 mg/kg/month). Cell-specific genes were used with a published deconvolution algorithm to identify immune cell proportions in patient samples, and unsupervised consensus clustering was generated. Efficacy data were re-analysed. RESULTS: Patient data (n=144: abatacept: n=98; placebo: n=46) were grouped into four main clusters (C) by predominant characteristic cells: C1-neutrophils; C2-cytotoxic T cells, B-cell receptor-ligated B cells, monocytes, IgG memory B cells, activated T helper cells; C3-plasma cells, activated dendritic cells, activated natural killer cells, neutrophils; C4-activated dendritic cells, cytotoxic T cells. C3 had the highest baseline total British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) scores, highest antidouble-stranded DNA autoantibody levels and shortest time to flare (TTF), plus trends in favour of response to abatacept over placebo: adjusted mean difference in BILAG score over 1 year, -4.78 (95% CI -12.49 to 2.92); median TTF, 56 vs 6 days; greater normalisation of complement component 3 and 4 levels. Differential improvements with abatacept were not seen in other clusters, except for median TTF in C1 (201 vs 109 days). CONCLUSIONS: Immune cell clustering segmented disease severity and responsiveness to abatacept. Definition of immune response cell types may inform design and interpretation of SLE trials and treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00119678; results.