Value of Precision Medicine in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Outcomes Associated with the Use of Companion Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) identifies patients more likely to benefit from biomarker-driven treatments. METHODS: Patients with nonsquamous cell (non-Sq) aNSCLC from the Flatiron Health database (diagnosed January 1, 2011-May 31, 2018) who had CDx testing were compared with those who had no reported evidence of testing. The association between CDx testing and overall survival was evaluated by unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Logistic regression analysis identified characteristics associated with CDx testing. The revised modified Lung Cancer Prognostic Index and other factors identified a priori were included in the adjusted models. RESULTS: A total of 17,555 patients with non-Sq aNSCLC (CDx, n = 14,732; no CDx, n = 2,823) with mean ± SD age of 67.2 ± 10.0 years were included. Most were insured (91.7%) and white (67.1%). Asian patients and those who were never-smokers were more likely to undergo CDx testing. Those with CDx testing lived longer than those without (median [95% confidence interval (CI)] survival, 13.04 [12.62-13.40] vs. 6.01 [5.72-6.24] months) and had a decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.72 [0.69-0.76]). A survival advantage was also seen for patients with CDx testing who received biomarker-driven first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with non-Sq aNSCLC who had CDx testing had a greater survival benefit than those without, supporting broader use of CDx testing in routine clinical practice to identify patients more likely to benefit from precision medicine. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Companion diagnostic (CDx) testing coupled with biomarker-driven treatment offers a greater survival benefit for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). In this study, patients with nonsquamous aNSCLC from Flatiron Health, a large, real-world oncology database, with CDx testing had a reduced mortality risk and lived longer than patients without reported evidence of CDx testing; those who received biomarker-driven therapy as their first line of treatment were likely to survive three times longer than those who did not. These results demonstrate the clinical utility of CDx testing as the first step in treating nonsquamous aNSCLC in real-world clinical practice.

ISPOR, the FDA, and the Evolving Regulatory Science of Medical Device Products.

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) is a key venue for members from private industry, government, and academia to collaborate and share advances in regulatory, clinical, and reimbursement science for drugs, devices, and diagnostics. In parallel, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable." In 2012, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) was formed as a public-private partnership bringing together government, industry, and nonprofit organizations to advance approaches that promote patient access to safe, innovative medical technologies. With a focus on regulatory science, the MDIC has been assessing how to apply real-world evidence (RWE) regulatory science to medical devices. A key goal of this project is to review the history of RWE regulatory science, define terms, and explain why and how RWE is being considered across the total product life cycle, including regulatory assessment. Unique considerations of real-world data for in vitro diagnostics are also taken into account. We envision that these activities will help ensure a high level of rigor and integrity of RWE necessary for regulatory use cases and demonstrate where RWE can be successfully used for regulatory decision making. The ISPOR, FDA, and MDIC are providing the needed leadership in ensuring that diverse stakeholders share a meaningful voice in determining RWE use and, by so doing, are improving the quality and efficiency of care, enhancing health outcomes, and addressing broader societal concerns of reducing health disparities and costs.

The rheumatoid arthritis treat-to-target trial: a cluster randomized trial within the Corrona rheumatology network.

BACKGROUND: The treat-to-target (T2T) approach to the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis involves using validated metrics to measure disease activity, frequent follow-up visits for patients with moderate to high disease activity, and escalation of therapy when patients have inadequate therapeutic response as assessed by standard disease activity scores. The study described is a newly launched cluster-randomized behavioral intervention to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the T2T approach in US rheumatology practices. It is designed to identify patient and provider barriers to implementing T2T management. This initial paper focuses on the novel study design and methods created to provide these insights. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial cluster-randomizes rheumatology practices from the existing Corrona network of private and academic sites rather than patients within sites or individual investigators to provide either T2T or usual care (UC) for qualified patients who meet the 2010 revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and have moderate to high disease activity. Specific medication choices are left to the investigator and patient, rather than being specified in the protocol. Enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with 30 practices randomized and enrolling a minimum of 530 patients. During the 12-month follow-up, visits are mandated as frequently as monthly in patients with active disease in the T2T group and every 3 months for the UC group. Safety data are collected at each visit. The coprimary endpoints include a comparison of the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity in the T2T and UC groups and assessment of the feasibility of implementing T2T in rheumatology practices, specifically assessment of the rates of treatment acceleration, frequency of visits, time to next visit conditional on disease activity, and probability of acceleration conditional on disease activity in the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: This cluster-randomized behavioral intervention study will provide valuable insights on the outcomes and feasibility of employing a T2T treatment approach in clinical practice in the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01407419.

Use of natriuretic peptides and echocardiography for diagnosing heart failure.

AIMS: International guidelines have recommended the use of echocardiography and natriuretic peptides (NP) testing in the diagnostic evaluation of heart failure (HF) for more than 10 years. However, real-world utilization of these diagnostic tests in the US is not known. We sought to assess contemporary trends in echocardiography and NP testing for diagnosing HF in the US. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TriNetX data were queried for the total number of first HF diagnoses in adults aged >18 years in the US from 2016 to 2019 with exclusions applied. NP testing and echocardiography any time before through 1 year following the index diagnosis were assessed. Temporal trends significance was evaluated using Cochran-Armitage trend tests. A total of 124 126 patients were included. Mean age was 68 ± 13 years, 53% were male, and 71% were White. Overall, 61 023 (49%) incident diagnoses were made in the outpatient and 63 103 (51%) in the inpatient setting with a significantly increasing trend toward inpatient diagnoses (p < 0.001). Of all incident HF diagnoses, 70 612 (57%) underwent echocardiography, 67 991 (55%) underwent NP testing, and 31 206 (25%) did not undergo either diagnostic test. There were increasing trends in the proportion of patients diagnosed in the inpatient versus outpatient setting that underwent echocardiography, NP testing, and either diagnostic test (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: We found low rates of echocardiography and NP testing in those with HF, with more of such testing performed amongst inpatient diagnoses. We also found increasing rates of inpatient HF diagnoses, indicating lost opportunities for earlier treatment initiation and better outcomes.

Improvements in health-related quality of life after treatment with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the 24-week randomized controlled RADIATE study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of tocilizumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in RA patients with inadequate responses to TNF inhibitors (TNFis). METHODS: In a Phase III randomized controlled trial, 489 patients received 4 or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab or placebo every 4 weeks plus MTX for 24 weeks. Mean changes from baseline over time and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in PROs were analyzed. RESULTS: At week 24, 8 mg/kg resulted in significantly greater improvements vs placebo in pain, global assessment of disease activity (P=0.001), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; P<0.0001), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (P=0.0150) and Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36 v2) Physical Component Summary (PCS; P=0.0003) scores, all greater than MCID; 4 mg/kg resulted in greater improvements in pain (P=0.0100), HAQ-DI (P=0.0030) and SF-36 PCS (P = 0.0020) scores. Tocilizumab-associated improvements were evident as early as week 2. At week 24, more tocilizumab-treated than control patients reported improvements greater than or equal to MCID in SF-36 domain scores and related PROs (50.9-84.9% vs 35.0-51.7%) and achieved ACR50 responses and/or Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) remission with PRO improvements greater than or equal to MCID (36.2-51.2% vs 10-20.7% and 10.7-37.5% vs 0.0-3.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab treatment in patients with inadequate responses to TNFis resulted in rapid and sustained improvements in multiple PROs that were statistically significant and clinically meaningful, consistent with previous efficacy reports. Trial Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT00106522.

TNFi Cycling Versus Changing Mechanism of Action in TNFi-Experienced Patients: Result of the Corrona CERTAIN Comparative Effectiveness Study.

OBJECTIVE: Comparative effectiveness research can inform treatment decisions regarding the choice of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFis (nTNFis) in real-world patients with RA and past TNFi experience. METHODS: Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions (CERTAIN) was nested within the United States Corrona registry. Adult patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] >10) with exposure to one or more prior TNFis who were switching to a new TNFi or nTNFi (choice of therapy per physician choice) were enrolled. The primary outcome was the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) at 12 months (CDAI ≤10; disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <2.67). Propensity score modeling probability of treatment with nTNFi versus TNFi adjusted for imbalanced factors. The response rate was modeled using mixed-effect logistic regression models, adjusting for a priori and imbalanced baseline factors and accounting for the practice-related treatment patterns. RESULTS: After applying inclusion criteria, 939 biologic initiations were analyzed, 505 (53.7%) nTNFis and 434 (46.3%) TNFis. Patients who started nTNFis were significantly more likely to have longer disease duration, more prior TNFi use, and higher patient fatigue scores and were more likely to have government insurance. At 12 months, 28% of nTNFi and 24% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by CDAI, and 22% of nTNFi and 19% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by DAS28-CRP. After multivariable adjustment and controlling for the influence of site-related confounding, there were no significant differences in the likelihood to reach LDA by CDAI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.62) or DAS28-CRP (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.77-1.75). CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world study enrolling patients with RA with prior TNFi exposure, switching to an nTNFi biologic was comparable in its clinical effectiveness with switching to another TNFi.

Validation of ICD-9-CM codes to identify gastrointestinal perforation events in administrative claims data among hospitalized rheumatoid arthritis patients.

PURPOSE: To validate, using physician review of abstracted medical chart data as a gold standard, a claims-based algorithm developed to identify gastrointestinal (GI) perforation cases among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Patients with established RA, aged 18 years or older with hospital admissions between January 2004 and September 2009, were selected from a large US-hospital-based database. An algorithm with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes for GI perforation and combinations of GI-related diagnosis codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) procedure codes for relevant GI surgeries was used to identify potential GI perforation cases. Two senior experienced specialist physicians independently reviewed abstracted chart data and classified cases as confirmed or unconfirmed GI perforations. Positive predictive values (PPVs) to identify confirmed GI perforation were calculated and stratified by upper versus lower GI tract. RESULTS: Overall, 86 of 92 GI perforation cases were confirmed, yielding an overall PPV of 94% (95%confidence interval [CI] = 86%-98%). PPV was 100% (95%CI = 100%-100%) for upper GI perforation (esophagus, stomach) and 91% (95%CI = 90%-97%) for lower GI perforation (small intestine, PPV = 100%; large intestine, PPV = 94%; unspecified lower GI, PPV = 89%). CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm, consisting of a combination of ICD-9-CM diagnosis and CPT-4 codes, could be used in future safety studies to evaluate GI perforation risk factors in RA patients.

Clinical Impact of Adherence to NCCN Guidelines for Biomarker Testing and First-Line Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC) Using Real-World Electronic Health Record Data.

INTRODUCTION: Although clinical guidelines are broadly available, the relationship between adherence and outcomes is not well studied. This study aimed to assess the association between adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and clinical outcomes for adult patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with aNSCLC (stages IIIB, IIIC, and IV) from a de-identified real-world database. The objective was accomplished in a two-step analysis process. We first assessed adherence to NCCN recommendations for biomarker testing and overall survival (OS). Next, we assessed adherence to NCCN-recommended first-line therapy and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Multivariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between guideline adherence and patient outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess median OS and TTD. RESULTS: A total of 28,784 patients with a diagnosis for aNSCLC between January 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of NCCN-recommended biomarker testing adherence. Two-thirds of these patients (n = 19,787) had evidence of biomarker testing (adherent). Multivariable Cox models found that testing-adherent patients had a significantly lower risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86, 0.92; p < 0.01]. Median OS was modestly longer in the testing-adherent group compared to the testing-non-adherent group (15.4 vs. 14.2 months; p < 0.01). For the first-line therapy analysis, 15,898 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 69.9% had evidence of appropriate first-line therapy (first-line-adherent). The multivariable Cox model found that adherent patients had significantly lower risk of treatment discontinuation versus non-adherent patients (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.57, 0.62; p < 0.01). First-line-adherent patients had a modest, yet significantly longer median TTD compared to first-line-non-adherent patients (3.45 vs. 2.40 months; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Improved clinical outcomes were observed in patients who were adherent to NCCN-recommended biomarker testing and first-line therapy. This study demonstrated the value of following NCCN guideline recommendations and the need to prioritize timely access to biomarker testing and individualized treatment.

Real evidence to assess clinical testing interference risk (REACTIR): A strategy using real world data to assess the prevalence of interfering substances in patients undergoing clinical laboratory testing.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory test interferences can cause spurious test results and patient harm. Knowing the frequency of various interfering substances in patient populations likely to be tested with a particular laboratory assay may inform test development, test utilization and strategies to mitigate interference risk. METHODS: We developed REACTIR (Real Evidence to Assess Clinical Testing Interference Risk), an approach using real world data to assess the prevalence of various interfering substances in patients tested with a particular type of assay. REACTIR uses administrative real world data to identify and subgroup patient cohorts tested with a particular laboratory test and evaluate interference risk. RESULTS: We demonstrate the application REACTIR to point of care (POC) blood glucose testing. We found that exposure to several substances with the potential to interfere in POC blood glucose tests, including N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) and high dose vitamin C was uncommon in most patients undergoing POC glucose tests with several key exceptions, such as burn patients receiving high dose IV-vitamin C or acetaminophen overdose patients receiving NAC. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from REACTIR may support risk mitigation strategies including targeted clinician education and clinical decision support. Likewise, adaptations of REACTIR to premarket assay development may inform optimal assay design and assessment.

Long-Term Safety of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis From the SUNSTONE Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety of rituximab in an observational cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to ≥ 1 antitumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States (SUNSTONE Registry). METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort study, patients received rituximab according to their physician's standard practice and were evaluated at standard-of-care follow-up visits at least every 6 months. The primary outcome was the incidence of protocol-defined significant infections. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events potentially associated with rituximab, cardiovascular or thrombotic (CVT) events, seizures, deaths and pregnancies. Posthoc analyses assessed outcomes by concomitant medication use. RESULTS: Overall, 989 patients (safety-evaluable population) received ≥ 1 dose of rituximab, with a total follow-up of 3844 patient-years (PYs; mean duration, 3.9 years). In total, 341 significant infections occurred in 197 patients (19.9%). The incidence rates (95% CI) for significant infections, CVT events, and seizures were 8.87 (7.98, 9.86), 1.95 (1.56, 2.45), and 0.18 (0.09, 0.38) per 100 PYs, respectively. The incidence of significant infections did not increase with time or with cumulative rituximab exposure. During the study, 64 patients died (crude mortality [95% CI]: 1.66 per 100 PYs [1.30, 2.13]). The most common causes of death were infections (19 patients), malignancy (14), and cardiovascular events (13). Eight pregnancies were reported in 7 patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA treated with rituximab for up to 5 years, the rates of significant infections were stable over time and higher in patients who received long-term systemic steroid treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Behavioral Intervention to Incorporate a Treat-to-Target Approach to Care of US Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treat-to-target approach versus usual care in a US-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients. METHODS: In this behavioral intervention trial, rheumatology practices were cluster-randomized to provide treat-to-target care or usual care. Eligible patients with moderate/high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) were followed for 12 months. Both treat-to-target and usual care patients were seen every 3 months. Treat-to-target providers were to have monthly visits with treatment acceleration at a minimum of every 3 months in patients with CDAI score >10; additional visits and treatment acceleration were at the discretion of usual care providers and patients. Coprimary end points were feasibility, assessed by rate of treatment acceleration conditional on CDAI score >10, and achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI score ≤10) by an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 practice sites per study arm were included (246 patients receiving treat-to-target and 286 receiving usual care). The groups had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Rates of treatment acceleration (treat-to-target 47% versus usual care 50%; odds ratio [OR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64, 1.34]) and achievement of LDA (treat-to-target 57% versus usual care 55%; OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.60, 1.84]) were similar between groups. Treat-to-target providers reported patient reluctance and medication lag time as common barriers to treatment acceleration. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a treat-to-target approach in typical US rheumatology practice. Treat-to-target care was not associated with increased likelihood of treatment acceleration or achievement of LDA, and barriers to treatment acceleration were identified.

Concomitant Use of Statins in Tocilizumab-Treated Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have decreased survival because of increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population, and treatment with tocilizumab (TCZ) has been shown to increase lipid levels; however, the relationship between lipids and cardiovascular risk is unknown. This post hoc analysis expanded on previously reported 24-week results by characterizing statin use and subsequent changes in lipid parameters in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous TCZ (TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC) over 2 years of treatment. METHODS: Data were collected from patients with moderate to severe active RA who received ≥1 dose of the study drug in seven international, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 and 4 clinical trials of TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. Lipid levels and safety events were assessed over 2 years of treatment. Data were summarized for all pooled treatment groups of the intention-to-treat populations in the TCZ-IV and TCZ-SC studies, and results were stratified by concomitant statin use. RESULTS: Data from this descriptive, retrospective, pooled analysis indicated that statins can stabilize lipid levels without a clinically significant increase in adverse events. Approximately 30% of patients in the TCZ treatment arms who never received a statin demonstrated a shift in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from <130 mg/dl at baseline to ≥130 mg/dl at 2 years. However, despite the increased potential cardiovascular risk, <15% of patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl and <35% of patients with a total cholesterol:high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol ratio >5 at 2 years were receiving concomitant statins. CONCLUSION: Concomitant statin use attenuated TCZ-mediated lipid increases; however, a large proportion of TCZ-treated patients potentially at risk of cardiovascular disease were untreated. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of potential risk associated with TCZ-mediated lipid elevations as well as implementation of RA-specific guidelines on the recognition and management of elevated risk of cardiovascular events in patients with RA. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.

Impact of Tocilizumab Monotherapy on Clinical and Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy has been proven as an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical trials. However, there are limited data available regarding the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy in real-world clinical settings in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of TCZ monotherapy on disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a US-based observational cohort of patients with RA seen in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Eligible patients had active RA, no prior use of TCZ, and initiated TCZ as monotherapy. Changes in disease activity and PROs were assessed 1 year after TCZ initiation for the overall cohort and stratified by number of prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis; 0, 1, or ≥2). Primary outcomes were change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); change in patient global disease activity, pain, fatigue; and the proportions of patients with improvement in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), morning stiffness, and EQ-5D. RESULTS: Of 255 eligible TCZ monotherapy initiators, 9.4% were TNFi naive, 36.5% had one prior TNFi, and 54.1% had ≥2 prior TNFis. Clinical and PRO measures indicated that patients were substantially impacted by their disease at baseline. The median decrease in CDAI from baseline to 1 year was 9.8 and median patient global and pain scores improved by 10 mm, indicative of clinically meaningful improvement; the median fatigue score improved by 5 mm. Approximately 26% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement in mHAQ, 54% experienced improvement in morning stiffness, and 20% to 36% experienced improvement in EQ-5D domains (walking, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). Improvements were similar across TNFi groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with active, refractory RA who initiated TCZ monotherapy experienced improvements in both composite disease activity scores and PROs at 1 year, regardless of prior TNFi exposure. FUNDING: Corrona, LLC and Genentech.

Impact of rituximab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the US Corrona Registry.

To evaluate the impact of rituximab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a US-based observational cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients with active RA, prior exposure to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and who newly initiated rituximab were identified. Changes in PROs were assessed 1 year after rituximab initiation. PRO measures included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); patient global disease activity, pain and fatigue (visual analog score; 0-100); morning stiffness (hours); modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ; 0-3); and EuroQoL EQ-5D. Of the 667 patients who newly initiated rituximab, baseline PRO and clinical measures indicated that patients were substantially impacted by their RA disease and quality of life; 54% of patients had high disease activity. One year after rituximab initiation, 49.0, 47.1, 49.8, and 23.2% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in patient global, pain, fatigue, and mHAQ, respectively. Morning stiffness and EuroQol EQ-5D domains improved in 48 and 19-32% of patients, respectively. These real-world registry data demonstrated that patients with long-standing, refractory RA experienced improvements in PROs 1 year after initiating rituximab.

Risk of Infection Associated With Subsequent Biologic Agent Use After Rituximab: Results From a National Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the time between the last rituximab infusion and initiation of a different biologic agent influenced infection risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients with RA who newly initiated rituximab within the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry were included if they switched to a nonrituximab biologic agent and had ≥1 followup visit within 12 months of switching. Patients were categorized by duration of time between their last rituximab infusion and initiation of a subsequent biologic agent (≤5 months, 6-11 months, and ≥12 months). The primary outcome was time to first infectious event. Adjusted Cox regression models estimated the association between time to starting a subsequent biologic agent and infection. RESULTS: A total of 44 overall infections (7 serious, 37 nonserious) were reported during the 12-month followup in the 215 patients included in this analysis (104 switched at ≤5 months, 67 at 6-11 months, and 44 at ≥12 months). Median (interquartile range) time to infection was 4 (2-5) months. Infection rates per patient-year in the ≤5-month, 6-11-month, and ≥12-month groups were 0.34 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.22-0.52), 0.30 (95% CI 0.17-0.52), and 0.41 (95% CI 0.22-0.77), respectively. After adjustment, time to switch to a subsequent biologic agent was not associated with infection, which remained unchanged when number and rate of rituximab retreatments were included in the models. CONCLUSION: In this real-world cohort of patients with RA, infection rates ranged from 0.30 to 0.41 per patient-year, with no significant difference in the rate between patients who initiated a subsequent biologic agent earlier versus later after rituximab treatment.

Dosing of Intravenous Tocilizumab in a Real-World Setting of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analyses from the Corrona Registry.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, the recommended starting dose of intravenous tocilizumab (TCZ) is 4 mg/kg every 4 weeks, with an increase to 8 mg/kg based on clinical response for patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis; however, data on how TCZ dose is escalated in real life are missing. The objective of this analysis was to describe patterns of early intravenous TCZ dose escalation in a real-world setting using data from the Corrona registry. METHODS: All patients enrolled in the comparative effectiveness substudy (CERTAIN) nested within Corrona who initiated TCZ and completed 3- and 6-month study visits were eligible for inclusion. Patients who initiated TCZ 4 mg/kg were categorized into 1 of 2 groups: those who remained on TCZ 4 mg/kg at 3 months (Group 1) and those who escalated to TCZ 8 mg/kg by or at 3 months (Group 2). Changes in clinical disease activity measures were provided. RESULTS: Of the 213 patients who were eligible for analysis, 86 (40.4%) remained on their initial dose of TCZ 4 mg/kg (Group 1) and 110 (51.6%) were escalated to TCZ 8 mg/kg by or at 3 months (Group 2). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups; except in Group 2, patients were older (58.3 vs. 54.0 years) and a lower proportion was female (75.5% vs. 89.4%) than in Group 1. Significant improvements in disease activity measures were observed at 3 and 6 months in both groups, with the majority of patients in both groups achieving moderate or good European League Against Rheumatism response. CONCLUSION: Real-world data demonstrated that physicians escalate TCZ dose at varying frequencies. The ability to administer TCZ in varying doses allows physicians to tailor TCZ therapy to disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01625650.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus subsequent anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States Corrona registry.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti-tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF-experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry. METHODS: Rituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ≥1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs. ≥2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (≥0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported. RESULTS: Estimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In anti-TNF-experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661 . Registered 25 July 2011.

Characteristics Associated with Biologic Monotherapy Use in Biologic-Naive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a US Registry Population.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to describe factors associated with initiating a biologic as monotherapy vs in combination with a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in the Corrona registry. METHODS: First biologic initiations were classified as monotherapy (Bio MT) or combination therapy (Bio CMB). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. Odds ratios (OR) based on mixed effects regression models estimated the association of covariates and use of monotherapy. Median odds ratios (MOR) based on estimated physician random effects quantified variation in individual physician use of monotherapy. RESULTS: Between October 2001 and April 2012, 3,923 previously biologic-naive patients initiated biologic therapy, of which 19.1 % initiated as monotherapy. Baseline characteristics of patients initiating Bio MT and Bio CMB were similar for age, sex, duration of RA, and clinical disease activity index. Significantly higher proportions of Bio CMB initiators had prior conventional DMARD (97.23 vs 85.60 %; P < 0.01) and methotrexate (MTX) use (91.68 vs 71.87 %; P < 0.01) compared with Bio MT initiators. Variation in individual physician use of monotherapy [MOR 1.89; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.66-2.23] and use of biologics approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for monotherapy (OR 1.47; 95 % CI, 1.20-1.81) significantly influenced the odds of initiating Bio MT. Patient history of hepatic disease, neutropenia, and malignancy were associated with increased odds of being prescribed Bio MT. CONCLUSION: In addition to regulatory approval for monotherapy and specific pre-existing comorbidities, significant variation in physician use of monotherapy was associated with increased likelihood of initiating Bio MT, independent of patient factors.

Effectiveness of Rituximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with Prior Exposure to Anti-TNF: Results from the CORRONA Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the real-world effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness at 12 months was assessed in patients who were prescribed RTX based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Change in CDAI was calculated (CDAI at 12 mos minus at initiation). Achievement of remission or low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) among those with moderate/high disease activity at the time of RTX initiation was compared based on prior anti-tumor necrosis factor agent (anti-TNF) use (1 vs ≥ 2) using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Patients (n = 265) were followed for 12 months with a mean change in CDAI of -8.1 (95% CI -9.8 - -6.4). Of the 218 patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline, patients with 1 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 25.0) demonstrated a mean change in CDAI of -10.1 (95% CI -13.2 - -7.0); patients with ≥ 2 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 30.0) demonstrated a mean change of -10.5 (95% CI -12.9 - -8.0). The unadjusted OR for achieving LDA/remission in patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline exposed to ≥ 2 versus 1 prior anti-TNF was 0.40 (95% CI 0.22-0.73), which was robust to 4 different adjusted models (OR range 0.38-0.44). CONCLUSION: A good clinical response was observed in all patients; however, patients previously treated with 1 anti-TNF, who had lower baseline CDAI and a greater opportunity for clinical improvement compared with patients previously treated with ≥ 2 anti-TNF, were more likely to achieve LDA/remission.

Technetium-99m bone scan and panoramic radiography in detection of bone invasion by oral carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The correct extension of cancer in the bone usually remains undetected on static imaging which may lead to inadequate or over excision. The conventional radiography as well as other anatomical imaging modalities like computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging often fails to detect functional changes in the bone. However, bone scinitigraphy is highly sensitive in detecting earlier changes in the bone but lack anatomical definition. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of combining technetium-99m bone scan and panoramic radiography (Tc scan/PR) over using single diagnostic modality in detection of jaw bone invasion by oral carcinomas. The accuracy of these imaging modalities either alone or in combination were determined by comparing with the histopathological findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with biopsy-proven oral malignant tumors were randomly selected from Oral Medicine and Radiology department over a period of two years. All patients were investigated preoperatively by Tc scan and PR. Lewis - Jones's designed diagnostic criterion was applied on Tc scan/PR to evaluate bone involvement by cancer. To test the accuracy of Tc scan, PR and Tc scan/PR, their results were compared with the histopathological findings of resected specimen. RESULTS: Hybrid Tc scan/PR had higher specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value (83.3%, 94.7%, 92.8%) than Tc scan alone (50%, 84.2%, 81.2%) and higher sensitivity and negative predictive value (100%, 100%) than PR (69.2%, 55.5%). CONCLUSION: Combination of Tc scan and PR was more accurate in detecting jaw bone invasion by oral squamous cell carcinoma than Tc scan and PR alone.