A retrospective study of morbidity and mortality of chronic acid sphingomyelinase deficiency in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) is a rare, progressive, potentially fatal lysosomal storage disease that exhibits a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes. There is a need to expand the knowledge of disease mortality and morbidity in Germany because of limited information on survival analysis in patients with chronic ASMD (type B or type A/B). METHODS: This observational, multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical records of patients with the first symptom onset/diagnosis of ASMD type B or type A/B between 1st January 1990 and 31st July 2021 from four German medical centres. Eligible medical records were abstracted to collect data on demographic characteristics, medical history, hospitalisation, mortality, and causes of death from disease onset to the last follow-up/death. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Standardised mortality ratio (SMR) was also explored. RESULTS: This study included 33 chart records of patients with ASMD type B (n = 24) and type A/B (n = 9), with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 8.0 [3.0-20.0] years and 1.0 [1.0-2.0] years, respectively, at diagnosis. The commonly reported manifestations were related to spleen (100.0%), liver (93.9%), and respiratory (77.4%) abnormalities. Nine deaths were reported at a median [IQR] age of 17.0 [5.0-25.0] years, with 66.7% of overall patients deceased at less than 18 years of age; the median [IQR] age at death for patients with ASMD type B (n = 4) and type A/B (n = 5) was 31.0 [11.0-55.0] and 9.0 [4.0-18.0] years, respectively. All deaths were ASMD-related and primarily caused by liver or respiratory failures or severe progressive neurodegeneration (two patients with ASMD type A/B). The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) overall survival age since birth was 45.4 (17.5-65.0) years. Additionally, an SMR [95% CI] analysis (21.6 [9.8-38.0]) showed that age-specific deaths in the ASMD population were 21.6 times more frequent than that in the general German population. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights considerable morbidity and mortality associated with ASMD type B and type A/B in Germany. It further emphasises the importance of effective therapy for chronic ASMD to reduce disease complications.

Survival of patients with chronic acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) in the United States: A retrospective chart review study.

Background: Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD), historically known as Niemann-Pick disease type A, A/B, and B, is a rare lysosomal storage pathology with multisystemic clinical manifestations. The aims of this study were to estimate the survival probability in patients in the United States with chronic ASMD (ASMD types B and A/B), and to describe the disease characteristics of these patients. Methods: This observational retrospective study included medical chart records of patients with chronic ASMD with retrievable data abstracted by 69 participating physicians from 25 medical centers in the United States. Included patients had a date of ASMD diagnosis or first presentation to a physician for ASMD symptoms (whichever occurred first) between January 01, 1990, and February 28, 2021. Medical chart records were excluded if patients were diagnosed with ASMD type A. Eligible medical chart records were abstracted to collect demographic, medical and developmental history, and mortality data. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses from birth until death. Results: The overall study population (N = 110) included 69 patients with ASMD type B, nine with type A/B, and 32 with ASMD "non-type A" (ASMD subtype was unknown, but patients were confirmed as not having ASMD type A). The majority of patients were male with a median age at diagnosis of 3.8 years. Thirty-eight patients died during the study observation period, at a median age of 6.8 years. The median (95% confidence interval) survival age from birth was 21.3 (10.2; 60.4) years. At diagnosis or first presentation, 42.7% patients had ≥1 ASMD-related complication; splenic (30.0%) and hepatobiliary (20.9%) being the most common, and 40.9% required ≥1 medical visit due to complications. Conclusion: Patients with chronic ASMD in the United States have poor survival and significant burden of illness.

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Treated with Sotagliflozin plus Insulin Versus Insulin Alone.

Background: Diabetes-related distress is common among persons affected by diabetes and is associated with suboptimal glycemic control and complications, thus constituting a relevant patient-report outcome (PRO). Improving glycemic control may reduce diabetes distress and improve treatment satisfaction. This post hoc analysis evaluated PRO data for a pooled cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) receiving sotagliflozin as adjunct to optimized insulin in the inTandem1 and inTandem2 studies. Methods: Clinically meaningful changes in the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and the two-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS2) total and individual scores were examined in the pooled data from the first 24 weeks of the studies. Results: In the cohort of patients with a baseline DTSQs total score ≤32 (∼76% of entire cohort), nearly twice as many patients treated with sotagliflozin 200 (45.9%) or 400 mg (42.3%) experienced a >3-point improvement from baseline versus those treated with placebo (24%). Treatment with sotagliflozin led to statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvements across all DTSQs items. Approximately 42% of all patients were considered to have a high risk of diabetes distress (total DDS2 score ≥6) at baseline following insulin optimization. More patients shifted from high to low risk with sotagliflozin compared with placebo (∼40% vs. 23%; P ≤ 0.0002). The baseline-adjusted difference in DDS2 from placebo was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced by -0.5 and -0.6 for sotagliflozin 200 and 400 mg, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with T1D treated with sotagliflozin in addition to optimized insulin therapy reported meaningful improvements in treatment satisfaction and diabetes distress. NCT02384941 and NCT02421510.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale. METHODS: Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint. RESULTS: Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments. CONCLUSION: Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized phase III trial of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Sarilumab improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody sarilumab administered with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the TARGET trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-IR). METHODS: 546 patients (81.9% female, mean age 52.9 years) were randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks + csDMARDs. PROs included patient global assessment (PtGA); pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36); FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F); Work Productivity Survey-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 24 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures; post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values. RESULTS: Sarilumab + csDMARDs doses resulted in improvements from baseline at week 12 vs placebo + csDMARDs in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F that were maintained at week 24. Sarilumab improved morning stiffness and reduced the impact of RA on work, family, social/leisure activities participation (WPS-RA) and on patients' lives (RAID). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID and ≥ normative scores were greater with sarilumab than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TNF-IR RA, 150 and 200 mg sarilumab + csDMARDs resulted in clinically meaningful patient-reported benefits on pain, fatigue, function, participation and health status at 12 and 24 weeks that exceeded placebo + csDMARDs, and were consistent with the clinical profile previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01709578; Results.