Patient Preference and Treatment Satisfaction With a Port Delivery System for Ranibizumab vs Intravitreal Injections in Patients With Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The port delivery system (PDS) with ranibizumab has demonstrated noninferior and equivalent efficacy compared with monthly intravitreal injections of ranibizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), but evaluating patient preference is important to help inform clinical decision-making. Objective: Evaluate treatment satisfaction for ranibizumab delivered via PDS vs intravitreal injections as well as patient preference among those assigned to PDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Archway was a phase 3 randomized active-comparator open-label clinical trial conducted at 78 sites in the US. Patients 50 years and older with nAMD diagnosed within 9 months of screening with a documented response to anti-VEGF therapy were included. Of 619 patients screened, 418 were enrolled; 415 were included in the primary analysis and 234 were included in the secondary exploratory analysis. The Archway study ran from September 12, 2019, through primary readout on May 22, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 3:2 to PDS with ranibizumab, 100 mg/mL, with fixed refill exchanges every 24 weeks or intravitreal ranibizumab injections, 0.5 mg, every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Treatment satisfaction was measured using the Macular Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in the PDS and intravitreal injection arms at week 40. Patient preference was assessed using the content-validated PDS Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPPQ), which measured the proportion of patients in the PDS arm with monthly monitoring who preferred treatment with the PDS at week 40 over previous intravitreal injections or concurrent fellow-eye injections. Both outcomes were exploratory end points. Results: The mean (SD) age of participants at baseline was 75.0 (7.9) years; 234 participants (59%) were women and 162 (41%) were men. At week 40, differences in overall treatment satisfaction scores were minimal for the PDS and intravitreal injection arms (mean, 68.0; 95% CI, 67.4-68.6; n = 237 and mean, 66.1; 95% CI, 64.9-67.3; n = 159, respectively; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.7-3.1). A total of 234 of 248 patients (94.4%) in the PDS arm were included in the PPPQ analysis. At week 40, almost all patients in the PDS arm preferred treatment via PDS (218 of 234 [93.2%]) vs previous intravitreal injections (3 of 234 [1.3%]), including 172 of 234 (73.5%) with a very strong preference for the PDS. In patients who received concurrent fellow-eye injections (n = 78), 72 (92.3%) preferred the PDS. Conclusions and Relevance: Although PDS treatment was preferred by almost all patients assigned to PDS over previous intravitreal injections, both delivery methods have high treatment satisfaction. These findings provide further evidence for the PDS as a meaningful alternative treatment option for patients with nAMD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03677934.

Quantifying the relationship between disability progression and quality of life in patients treated for NMOSD: Insights from the SAkura studies.

BACKGROUND: To date, no specific scales have been developed to explore the impact of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD)-related disability on quality of life (QoL). The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D) have been used to assess disability and QoL, respectively, in patients with NMOSD. However, there is limited evidence surrounding their use in this condition. We compared EDSS and EQ-5D data across two clinical trials to quantify the relationship between disability and QoL in patients with NMOSD. METHODS: SAkuraSky (NCT02028884) and SAkuraStar (NCT02073279) were Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-assignment studies of satralizumab, administered in combination with baseline immunosuppressants (SAkuraSky) or as monotherapy (SAkuraStar). EDSS and EQ-5D were assessed at baseline and at 24-week intervals thereafter. The relationship between disability and QoL was assessed by estimating EQ-5D utilities (UK tariff) for each incremental EDSS category. A repeated-measures linear model was used to regress health utilities on EDSS score-derived health states. RESULTS: Overall, 176 patients underwent at least one EDSS assessment and completed an EQ-5D survey and were included in this analysis. There was a clear association between mean EQ-5D score and EDSS score, with decreases in QoL being observed at each incremental increase in disability. The relationship between EDSS and EQ-5D score remained consistent across the different treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results, generated from high-quality clinical trial data, demonstrated a strong and consistent relationship between disability and QoL in patients with NMOSD.

Associations between Patient Global Assessment scores and pain, physical function, and fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of data from phase 3 trials of tofacitinib.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined the degree to which Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) was driven by patient-reported assessments of pain (Pain), physical function, and fatigue in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo, each with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data pooled from three randomized controlled trials in csDMARD-inadequate responder (csDMARD-IR) patients (ORAL Scan: NCT00847613; ORAL Standard: NCT00853385; ORAL Sync: NCT00856544). Using subgroup analysis from 2 × 2 tables, associations between PtGA and Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) at month 3 were evaluated using Pearson's Phi correlation coefficients. To support the main analysis, associations between select patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also evaluated in csDMARD-naïve (ORAL Start; NCT01039688) and biologic (b)DMARD-IR (ORAL Step; NCT00960440) patients. RESULTS: Across csDMARD-IR treatment groups, low disease activity (defined as PtGA ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in PtGA were associated with mild Pain (Visual Analog Scale score ≤ 20 mm), and moderate (≥ 30%) and substantial (≥ 50%) improvements from baseline in Pain; lack of Pain improvement was associated with little/no improvement in PtGA. In contrast, large proportions of csDMARD-IR patients who reported PtGA improvements did not report HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ normative values (≤ 0.25 and ≥ 43.5, respectively) or changes in HAQ-DI or FACIT-F scores ≥ minimum clinically important difference (≥ 0.22 and ≥ 4.0, respectively). Generally, PtGA and Pain outcomes were moderately-to-strongly correlated at month 3 in csDMARD-IR patients, with weaker correlations evident between PtGA and HAQ-DI/FACIT-F outcomes. Similar findings were generally evident in csDMARD-naïve and bDMARD-IR patients. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports the role of Pain as a key driver of PtGA in RA; physical function and fatigue play lesser roles in patients' perceptions of disease activity. These findings corroborate the importance of improved PROs and attainment of low symptom states for optimizing patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00847613 (registered: February 19, 2009); NCT00853385 (registered: March 2, 2009); NCT00856544 (registered: March 5, 2009); NCT01039688 (registered: December 25, 2009); NCT00960440 (registered: August 17, 2009).

Tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the 24-month Phase 3 ORAL Scan study.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). METHODS: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep. RESULTS: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial.

Objective: To provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods: ORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores. Results: Substantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points. Conclusion: Treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning. Trial registration number: NCT02187055.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors as Monotherapy and Combination Therapy for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: No published studies exist comparing the effectiveness of tofacitinib with other advanced therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world clinical practice. Here, we report differences in effectiveness of tofacitinib compared with standard of care, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), using US Corrona registry data. METHODS: This observational cohort study included RA patients receiving tofacitinib (from 6 November 2012; N = 558) or TNFi (from 1 November 2001; N = 8014) with or without MTX until 31 July 2016. Efficacy outcomes at 6 months included modified American College of Rheumatology 20% responses, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Pain. Outcomes were compared between patients receiving TNFi and tofacitinib with or without MTX and by line of therapy. Outcomes within therapy lines were compared using propensity-score matching; between-group differences were estimated using mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: Patients receiving tofacitinib had longer RA duration and a greater proportion had previously received biologics than those receiving TNFi; other baseline characteristics were comparable. In patients receiving second- and third-line TNFi therapy, CDAI low disease activity/remission response rates were significantly better with concomitant MTX. Too few patients received tofacitinib as second line for meaningful assessment. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between tofacitinib as monotherapy and tofacitinib with concomitant MTX. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, TNFi efficacy is improved with concomitant MTX in the second and third line. In the third/fourth line, patients are likely to achieve similar efficacy with tofacitinib monotherapy, or TNFi or tofacitinib in combination with MTX. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Clinical Efficacy, Radiographic, and Safety Outcomes From a Twenty-Four-Month, Phase III Study.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The phase III, 24-month, placebo-controlled Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORAL) Scan trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, including inhibition of structural progression, and safety of tofacitinib in patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Month 24 data from the completed study are reported here. METHODS: Patients were randomized 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, switched to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, with stable background MTX. Patients receiving placebo switched to tofacitinib at month 3 (nonresponders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Clinical efficacy, structural progression, and treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set with observed data or nonresponder imputation with no advancement penalty for clinical efficacy, and imputation by linear extrapolation for structural progression. RESULTS: Overall, 797 patients were treated; 539 (67.6%) completed 24 months of treatment. Responses according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70; the proportion of patients in whom remission or low disease activity was achieved according to the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Simplified Disease Activity Index; Boolean remission; and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores were maintained from month 12 to 24 and were similar between tofacitinib dosages. Limited structural damage was observed at months 12 and 24. Safety events were similar in type and frequency for both tofacitinib dosages, and were consistent with those previously reported. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that clinical and radiographic treatment effects are sustained in months 12-24 in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily plus MTX. The safety profile is consistent with that of other tofacitinib studies.

Assessments of the unmet need in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from the NOR-DMARD registry.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry. METHODS: Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months. RESULTS: The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0-34.1%), 33.9-47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7-22.1% over 24 months). CONCLUSION: An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease affecting an estimated 1.5 million patients in the US. The condition is associated with a substantial health and economic burden. An economic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib (a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor) versus biologic therapies commonly prescribed in the US for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed whereby sequences of treatments were evaluated. Response to treatment was modeled by HAQ change, and informed by a network meta-analysis. Mortality, resource use and quality of life were captured in the model using published regression analyses based on HAQ score. Treatment discontinuation was linked to response to treatment and to adverse events. Patients were modeled as having had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), or to a first biologic therapy (TNFi-IR). RESULTS: The tofacitinib strategy was associated with cost savings compared with alternative treatment sequences across all modeled scenarios (i.e. in both the MTX-IR and TNFi-IR scenarios), with lifetime cost savings per patient ranging from $65,205 to $93,959 (2015 costs). Cost savings arose due to improved functioning and the resulting savings in healthcare expenditure, and lower drug and administration costs. The tofacitinib strategies all resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with additional QALYs per patient ranging from 0.01 to 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib as a second-line therapy following methotrexate failure and as a third-line therapy following a biologic failure produces lower costs and improved quality of life compared with the current pathway of care.

Estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss among rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing tofacitinib treatment: post hoc analyses of two randomized clinical trials.

Objectives: RA causes high disability levels and reduces health-related quality of life, triggering increased costs and risk of unemployment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. These post hoc analyses of phase 3 data aimed to assess monthly medical expenditure (MME) and risk of job loss for tofacitinib treatment vs placebo. Methods: Data analysed were from two randomized phase 3 studies of RA patients (n = 1115) with inadequate response to MTX or TNF inhibitors (TNFi) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab (one study only) or placebo, in combination with MTX. Short Form 36 version 2 Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores were translated into predicted MME via an algorithm and concurrent inability to work and job loss risks at 6, 12 and 24 months, using Medical Outcomes Study data. Results: MME reduction by month 3 was $100 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated TNFi inadequate responders (P < 0.001); >20 and 6% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾16%, and risk of future job loss decreased ∼20% (P < 0.001 vs placebo). MME reduction by month 3 was $70 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated MTX inadequate responders (P < 0.001); ⩾23 and 13% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾31% and risk of future job loss decreased ⩾25% (P < 0.001 vs placebo). Conclusion: Tofacitinib treatment had a positive impact on estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss for RA patients with inadequate response to MTX or TNFi.

Tofacitinib versus Biologic Treatments in Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to Nonbiologic DMARDs: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as monotherapy and combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and other novel DMARDs for second-line moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by means of a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods. MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 1990 and March 2015. Efficacy data based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at 6 months, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were analyzed by means of Bayesian NMAs. Results. 45 RCTs were identified, the majority of which demonstrated a low risk of bias. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) and 10 mg BID monotherapy exhibited comparable efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events versus other monotherapies. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID + DMARDs or methotrexate (MTX) were mostly comparable to other combination therapies in terms of efficacy and discontinuation due to adverse events. Conclusion. In most cases, tofacitinib had similar efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events compared to biologic DMARDs.

Analysis of haematological changes in tofacitinib-treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis across phase 3 and long-term extension studies.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. The aim of this analysis was to characterize changes in haematological parameters following tofacitinib treatment, and to compare changes in haemoglobin with markers of disease activity, fatigue and vitality. METHODS: Changes in neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts and haemoglobin levels were analysed in patients with RA from six phase 3 randomized controlled trials (n = 4271) of tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg bd, placebo or active comparators of up to 24 months' duration, and two long-term extension (LTE) studies (n = 4858) of tofacitinib of up to 84 months' duration. Disease activity markers included CRP and ESR. Fatigue and vitality were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Short Form Health Survey-36 vitality domain scores. RESULTS: In phase 3 studies, mean neutrophil and lymphocyte counts decreased and mean haemoglobin levels increased in all tofacitinib treatment groups. Haemoglobin levels and neutrophil counts stabilized in the LTE studies, while lymphocyte count decreases stabilized at approximately month 48. Increased haemoglobin was associated with decreased ESR and CRP levels. Clinically meaningful reductions in haemoglobin levels (⩾3 g/dl from baseline or haemoglobin ⩽7 g/dl) occurred in <1.0% of patients in all treatment groups. FACIT-F and Short Form Health Survey-36 vitality scores were weakly correlated with haemoglobin levels. CONCLUSION: Small changes in haematological parameters were seen with tofacitinib treatment, which stabilized over time in the LTE studies. Changes in haemoglobin levels, although associated with changes in ESR and CRP, were not associated with fatigue or vitality.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or placebo in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: In a 12-month, phase III randomized controlled trial (ORAL Sync), patients (n = 795) with active RA and previous inadequate response to therapy with ≥1 conventional or biologic DMARD were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID, placebo advanced to 5 mg BID, or placebo to 10 mg BID, in combination with stable background DMARD therapy. PROs included patient global assessment of arthritis (PtGA), patient assessment of arthritis pain (Pain), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index [HAQ DI]), health-related quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey [SF-36]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F]), and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study Sleep [MOS Sleep]). RESULTS: At month 3, statistically significant improvements from baseline versus placebo were reported in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, all 8 SF-36 domains, FACIT-F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, 7 SF-36 domains, FACIT-F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 5 mg BID. Improvements were sustained to month 12. Significantly more tofacitinib-treated patients reported improvements of greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences at month 3 versus placebo in all PROs, except the SF-36 role-emotional domain (significant for tofacitinib 10 mg BID). CONCLUSION: Patients with active RA treated with tofacitinib combined with background conventional DMARD therapy reported sustained, significant, and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo.

Tofacitinib Versus Biologic Treatments in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Results From a Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with RA and a prior inadequate response (IR) to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 5 randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated tofacitinib or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) against placebo in patient populations with RA with a prior IR to TNFi. The definition of TNFi-IR varied across studies, and included patients with an IR or who had failed treatment with TNFi for any reason. A network meta-analysis was conducted comparing study data with regard to American College of Rheumatology response rates and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index improvement at weeks 12 and 24, rates of treatment withdrawal due to all causes; adverse events (AEs) and lack of efficacy; and rates of AEs, serious AEs, and serious infections. FINDINGS: The 5 trials included a total of 2136 patients. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily combined with methotrexate was found to have relative risk estimates of American College of Rheumatology responses and change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score comparable with abatacept, golimumab, rituximab, and tocilizumab combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Withdrawal rates from trials due to all causes and AEs were comparable between treatments, and tofacitinib had a lower rate of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. Rates of AEs and HAQ-DI were comparable between tofacitinib, other active treatments, and placebo. No serious infections were reported with tofacitinib during the placebo-controlled period (up to week 12) in this study population; rates of serious infection with other active treatments were generally low and similar to placebo. IMPLICATIONS: During a 24-week period, tofacitinib had efficacy and rates of AEs comparable with currently available bDMARDs in the treatment of patients with RA who had a prior IR to TNFi. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: ORAL Step, NCT00960440; ATTAIN, NCT00124982; GO-AFTER, NCT00299546; RADIATE, NCT00106522; REFLEX, NCT00462345.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the randomised phase III ORAL Start trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients (defined as no prior treatment or ≤3 doses) receiving tofacitinib versus MTX. METHODS: In the 24-month, phase III, randomised, controlled, ORAL Start trial (NCT01039688), patients were randomised 2:2:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (n=373), tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day (n=397) or MTX (n=186). PROs assessed included Patient Global Assessment of disease (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36]). RESULTS: PROs improved following tofacitinib and MTX treatment: benefits were sustained over 24 months. Patients receiving tofacitinib reported earlier responses which were significantly different between each tofacitinib dose and MTX at month 3 through month 24. At month 6 (primary end point), significant improvements versus MTX were observed in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 5/8 domain scores and FACIT-F with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day; all PROs, except SF-36 Mental Component Summary Score and Medical Outcomes Survey-Sleep, with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day. At month 6, the proportion of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important difference were significant versus MTX with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day in PtGA and 3/8 SF-36 domains; and with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 4/8 domains and FACIT-F. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day monotherapy versus MTX reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs over 24 months; onset of benefit with tofacitinib treatment occurred earlier. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01039688.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Modeling the Cost of Treatment Strategies in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib is approved in the United States for use in adults with moderately to severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate, using an economic model, the treatment costs of an RA strategy including tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic RA treatment strategies, which are commonly prescribed in the United States, and (b) assess the economic impact of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy (MTX-IR analysis) and to combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-IR analysis). METHODS: A transparent, Excel-based economic model with a decision-tree approach was developed to evaluate costs over a 1- and 2-year time horizon. The model compared tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (BID) either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX with similarly labeled biologic therapies. Response to treatment was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR20 represented clinical response and determined whether patients continued therapy. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were sourced from prescribing information and safety event rates from a published meta-analysis. Following an adverse event or a lack of response to treatment, it was assumed that 75% of patients switched to the next line of treatment (first to abatacept and then to rituximab). The perspective was that of a U.S. payer. Costs were reported in 2015 U.S. dollars and included drug wholesale acquisition costs, monitoring, drug administration, and treatment for minor and serious adverse events. The patient population eligible for treatment was based on the total number of members (i.e., RA and non-RA) in a payer organization; members with RA treated with biologic therapies were estimated using epidemiological data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of varying key parameters, including treatment-switching probability, product rebate, major rates of adverse drug reaction, and ACR20 rates, on the model outcomes. RESULTS: Tofacitinib combination therapy after MTX failure was associated with the lowest cost per member per month (PMPM) over a 2-year time frame at $5.53, compared with $6.49 for adalimumab, $6.43 for etanercept, $5.95 for certolizumab, and $5.89 for tocilizumab. Similar savings were observed when all biologics were administered as monotherapy. Tofacitinib combination therapy was also associated with the lower PMPM cost compared with adalimumab combination therapy in the TNF-IR analysis. Tofacitinib was also among the lowest cost per ACR20 responder in each analysis. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that tofacitinib would potentially be cost saving even in the least optimistic scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that tofacitinib 5 mg BID following MTX failure is a lower cost per patient treatment option when used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic regimens. Tofacitinib + MTX in TNF-IR patients was also predicted to be a lower-cost treatment option compared with adalimumab+MTX and was associated with the lowest cost per ACR 20/50/70 responder. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Pfizer, which determined the research topic and paid York Health Economics Consortium to develop the analysis and conduct the research. York Health Economics Consortium has received consultancy fees from Pfizer. Gerber, Wallenstein, Mendelsohn, Bourret, Singh, and Moynagh are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Editorial support was funded by Pfizer and was provided by Claxton, Jenks, and Taylor, who are employees of York Health Economics Consortium. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Taylor, Jenks, Gerber, and Singh, along with the other authors. Gerber, Moynagh, and Singh collected the data, assisted by Bouret and Mendelsohn; data interpretation was performed by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn. The manuscript was written primarily by Claxton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn, with assistance from the other authors.

Meta-analysis of long-term joint structural deterioration in minimally treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and joint structural deterioration. Driven by recent expectations that patients in clinical trials randomized to placebo should be 'rescued' with active therapy within 6 months of starting treatment, the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with biologic agents beyond this period is unclear. With longer-term evidence of the rate of joint deterioration with minimal treatment, the efficacy of biologic agents and novel treatments might be projected beyond the placebo-controlled phase observed in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to estimate radiographic structural deterioration over time in patients with moderate-to-severe RA minimally treated with DMARDs. METHODS: A literature review identified evidence of joint structural deterioration in patients with (DMARD-IR population) and without (non-DMARD-IR population) a history of inadequate response to DMARDs. Patients were minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD or palliative care (non-DMARD-IR population only). Outcomes of interest were the (modified) Total Sharp Score (TSS) and subscales (Erosion Subscore [ES] and Joint Space Narrowing [JSN] Subscore), and Larsen score. Pooled joint-deterioration curves over time were obtained with meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Mean change from baseline in TSS increased in the DMARD-IR population from 1.14 (95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.66, 1.67) to 9.84 (5.68, 14.46) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively, and a non-linear increase of 1.56 (0.79, 2.34) and 5.13 (-1.35, 11.67) in the non-DMARD-IR population. At the same time points, mean changes (95 % CrI) were 0.51 (0.27, 0.83) and 4.43 (2.38, 7.21) for ES and 0.36 (0.09, 0.67) and 3.14 (0.80, 5.78) for JSN in the DMARD-IR population, whereas corresponding changes in the non-DMARD-IR population were 0.69 (0.31, 1.12) and 2.93 (0.92, 5.02), and 0.29 (0.17, 0.44) and 2.55 (1.45, 3.80), respectively. Larsen scores were only available for the non-DMARD-IR population, with mean changes (95 % CrI) of 0.08 (0.04, 0.11) and 0.65 (0.36, 0.96) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively. CONCLUSION: Minimal treatment of RA with one non-biologic DMARD results in deterioration of joint structure in patients with or without a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: review of key Phase 2 studies.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here, the safety and efficacy data from five Phase 2 studies of tofacitinib in patients with RA are summarized. Tofacitinib 1-30 mg twice daily was investigated, as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate, in patients with RA. Tofacitinib 20 mg once daily was investigated in one study. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily were selected for investigation in Phase 3 studies; therefore, the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily in Phase 2 studies are the focus of this review. Tofacitinib ≥ 5 mg twice daily was efficacious in a dose-dependent manner, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in the signs and symptoms of RA and patient-reported outcomes. The safety profile was consistent across studies. The efficacy and safety profile of tofacitinib in Phase 2 studies supported its further investigation and the selection of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily and tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for evaluation in Phase 3 studies.

Effects of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of two Phase 2 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we investigated the effects of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with active RA. METHODS: Two, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b studies were performed. The combination study evaluated patients with inadequate response to methotrexate who received tofacitinib 1-15 mg twice daily (BID), 20 mg once daily or placebo, on background methotrexate. In the monotherapy study, patients with inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs received tofacitinib 1-15 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg once every other week or placebo. PROs measured were: Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (PAAP), Patient's Assessment of Disease Activity, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F and SF-36. RESULTS: In the combination study (n=507), significant improvements (p<0.05) versus placebo were observed at Week 12 in PAAP (visual analogue scale) and HAQ-DI for all tofacitinib groups. In the monotherapy study (n=384), significant improvements in PAAP were observed at Week 12 for tofacitinib 5, 10 and 15 mg BID, and in HAQ-DI for tofacitinib 3, 5, 10 and 15 mg BID. Significant improvements versus placebo were seen at Week 2 in PAAP (both studies) and HAQ­DI (monotherapy study) with tofacitinib, and were maintained throughout each study. In both studies, improvements in several domains of the SF-36 in the tofacitinib groups were observed at Weeks 12 and 24. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active RA, tofacitinib, either in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy, demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in pain, physical functioning and health-related quality of life.

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 study of active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of tofacitinib or adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate responses to MTX. METHODS: In this 12-month, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (ORAL Standard), patients (n = 717) receiving background MTX were randomized to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo. PROs included HAQ-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis, Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain, health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue) and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep). RESULTS: At month 3, tofacitinib 10 mg BID treatment resulted in significant changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs, sustained to month 12, with the highest number of patients reporting improvements ⩾minimum clinically important differences vs placebo (P < 0.05). Changes from baseline at month 3 with tofacitinib 5 mg BID and adalimumab were similar and statistically significant vs placebo across most PROs, excluding SF-36 Mental Component Score and Social Functioning, Role Emotional, and Mental Health domains, with significantly more patients reporting improvements ⩾minimum clinically important differences. Numbers Needed to Treat were lowest for tofacitinib 10 mg BID and similar between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and adalimumab. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate to severe RA and inadequate responses to MTX reported improvements across a broad range of PROs with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID and adalimumab that were significantly superior to placebo.