A Real-World Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Upadacitinib, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors, and Other Advanced Therapies After Switching from an Initial Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the clinical effectiveness of switching from tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to upadacitinib (TNFi-UPA), another TNFi (TNFi-TNFi), or an advanced therapy with another mechanism of action (TNFi-other MOA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey administered to rheumatologists and their consulting patients in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada, and the USA from May 2021 to January 2022. Patients who switched treatment from an initial TNFi were stratified by subsequent therapy of interest: TNFi-UPA, TNFi-TNFi, or TNFi-other MOA. Physician-reported clinical outcomes including disease activity (with formal DAS28 scoring available for 29% of patients) categorized as remission, low/moderate/high disease activity, as well as pain were recorded at initiation of current treatment and ≥ 6 months from treatment switch. Fatigue and treatment adherence were measured ≥ 6 months from treatment switch. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment compared outcomes by subsequent class of therapy: TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-TNFi, or TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-other MOA. RESULTS: Of 503 patients who switched from their first TNFi, 261 were in TNFi-UPA, 128 in TNFi-TNFi, and 114 in TNFi-other MOA groups. At the time of switch, most patients had moderate/high disease activity (TNFi-UPA: 73%; TNFi-TNFi: 52%; TNFi-other MOA: 60%). After adjustment for differences in characteristics at point of switch, patients in TNFi-UPA group (n = 261) were significantly more likely to achieve physician-reported remission (67.7% vs. 40.3%; p = 0.0015), no pain (55.7% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0007), and complete adherence (60.0% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.0049) compared with patients in TNFi-TNFi group (n = 121). Similar findings were observed for TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-other MOA groups (n = 111). CONCLUSION: Patients who switched from TNFi to UPA had significantly better clinical outcomes of remission, no pain, and complete adherence than those who cycled TNFi or switched to another MOA.

Quality of Life Evaluation in Patients with Follicular Cell Lymphoma: A Real-World Study in Europe and the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), characterized by a long natural course of remissions/relapses. We aimed to evaluate real-world quality of life (QoL) in patients with FL, by line of therapy (LOT), and across countries. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi FL Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients in Europe [France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK)], and the United States (US) from June 2021 to January 2022. Patients provided demographics and patient-reported outcomes via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Bivariate analysis assessed QoL versus NHL, across LOT [first line (1L), second line (2L), third line or later (3L+)] and country. RESULTS: Patients (n = 401) had a mean [standard deviation (SD)] age of 66.0 (9.24) years, 58.1% were male, and 41.9%/22.9% were Ann Arbor stage III/IV. Patients with FL mean EORTC global health status (GHS)/QoL, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, appetite loss, and diarrhea scores were statistically significantly worse (p < 0.05) versus the NHL reference values. Mean (SD) GHS/QoL worsened from 1L [56.5 (22.21)] to 3L+ [50.4 (20.11)]. Physical and role functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and diarrhea scores also significantly worsened across later LOTs (p < 0.05). Across all functional domains, mean scores were significantly lower (p < 0.05) and almost all symptom scores (excluding diarrhea) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) for European versus US patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FL at later LOTs had significantly worse scores in most QoL aspects than earlier LOTs. European patients had significantly lower functioning and higher symptom burden than in the US. These real-world findings highlight the need for novel FL therapies that alleviate patient burden, positively impacting QoL.

There is little information about the effects of follicular lymphoma and treatments on quality of life as assessed by patients. We surveyed doctors and their patients with follicular lymphoma across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US), and asked patients to complete a form reporting their quality of life. A total of 401 patients were included.In general, patients with follicular lymphoma treated across all lines of treatment had worse quality of life and symptoms of nausea and vomiting, pain, shortness of breath, appetite loss, and diarrhea compared to a reference group of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Overall quality of life and physical, role, and social functioning of patients with follicular lymphoma worsened from the first to the third line of treatment. Fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and diarrhea symptom scores also worsened across the lines of therapies. European patients had worse quality of life, functioning, and symptoms compared to US patients. Better treatments are needed to improve symptoms, functions, and quality of life for patients with follicular lymphoma.

The impact of myasthenia gravis severity on work and daily activities.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: People with myasthenia gravis (MG) experience impaired quality of life. However, the impact of MG symptoms on work productivity has not been well-studied. We aimed to evaluate this impact and to examine associations between disease severity and the degree of impairment. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi MG Disease-Specific Programme™, a multinational (USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) survey completed by physicians and their patients with MG in 2020. Patient-reported measures included the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Specific Health Problem questionnaire. RESULTS: The WPAI questionnaire was completed by 330 patients. Among those currently employed, the mean percentage of work time missed (absenteeism) was 13.3% (N = 116), percentage impairment of productivity at work (presenteeism) was 26.7% (N = 121), and overall work impairment was 30.0% (N = 110). Across all patients, impairment of non-work-related activities due to health problems (ADL impairment) was 39.2% (N = 330). Regression analysis indicated that impairment differed according to MG Foundation of America (MGFA) class (p = .0147, p < .0001, p < .0001 and p < .0001 for absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment and ADL impairment, respectively). Being MGFA class III/IV was a predictor of presenteeism, overall work impairment and ADL impairment in a predictor model. DISCUSSION: Patients with MG experience substantial work impairment particularly those with more severe symptoms, highlighting an important way in which patient quality of life is negatively affected. More effective treatment strategies would enable patients to lead more productive lives and could impact decisions relating to work and career.

Clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving standard and escalated doses of targeted therapies: findings from a global real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Although dosing regimens of targeted therapies (TT) for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are guided by market authorizations and clinical guidelines, little is known about clinical guideline adherence or outcomes in patients receiving escalated doses of TT due to lack of response. This real-world study explored the prevalence of dose escalation and compared outcomes between patients receiving standard and escalated TT doses. METHODS: Data were from the 2020-2021 Adelphi Disease Specific Programme for inflammatory bowel disease, a cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists and their UC and CD patients across five European countries and the US. Physicians provided retrospective data collection of patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, and satisfaction; patients reported quality-of-life and work productivity. Patients were grouped by TT maintenance dose; standard and escalated dose groups were compared. Outcomes were adjusted for time on current TT and severity at current TT initiation using regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,241 UC and 1,477 CD patients, 19.1% and 24.1%, respectively, received escalated TT doses. Despite escalation, a substantial proportion of patients had not achieved remission, had moderate or severe disease activity, or were flaring. Most physicians were not fully satisfied with treatment in the escalated dose group and were more likely to switch patients to another treatment regimen than patients on standard dose. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation is not always an effective approach to resolve inadequate or loss of response in UC and CD, highlighting a need for more therapeutic options or alternative treatment strategies in patients unresponsive to TT.

Factors associated with physician-reported treatment status of patients with osteoarthritis pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is typically associated with pain, but many patients are not treated. METHODS: This point in time study explored factors associated with treatment status, using logistic regression of data from the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme conducted in the United States. Patients' treatment status was based on physician-reported, current: 1) prescription medication for OA vs. none; and 2) physician treatment (prescription medication and/or recommendation for specified nonpharmacologic treatment for OA [physical or occupational therapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or cognitive behavior therapy/psychotherapy]) vs. self-management (no prescription medication or specified nonpharmacologic treatment). RESULTS: The 841 patients (including 57.0% knee OA, 31.9% hip OA) reported mild (45.4%) or moderate or severe (54.6%) average pain intensity over the last week. The majority were prescribed medication and/or recommended specified nonpharmacologic treatment; 218 were not prescription-medicated and 122 were self-managed. Bivariate analyses showed less severe patient-reported pain intensity and physician-rated OA severity, fewer joints affected by OA, lower proportion of joints affected by knee OA, better health status, lower body mass index, and lower ratings for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks, for those not prescribed medication (vs. prescription-medicated). Multivariate analyses confirmed factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with prescription medication included (odds ratio): physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.03), patient-reported moderate OA severity 6 months ago (vs. mild, 1.71), knee OA (vs. not, 1.81), physician-recommended (0.28) and patient-reported (0.43) over-the-counter medication use (vs. not), prior surgery for OA (vs. not, 0.37); uncertain income was also significant. Factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with physician treatment included (odds ratio): physician-recommended nonpharmacologic therapy requiring no/minimal medical supervision (vs. not, 2.21), physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.04), patient-reported over-the-counter medication use (vs. not, 0.26); uncertain time since diagnosis was also significant. Patient-reported pain intensity and most demographic factors were not significant in either model. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients were not prescribed medication and 1 in 7 were self-managed, although many were using over-the-counter medications or nonpharmacologic therapies requiring no/minimal medical supervision. Multiple factors were significantly associated with treatment status, including OA severity and over-the-counter medication, but not pain intensity or most demographics.

Real-world homologous recombination repair mutation testing in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Japan.

Aim: To assess homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) testing patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods: A point-in-time, international survey conducted January-August 2020. Results: Three-quarters of physicians (oncologists, urologists, specialist surgeons) globally reported access to genetic/genomic testing and just over half were HRRm testers. Surveyed physicians reported HRRm testing and positivity rates for 1913 patients, which were 18.1% and 33.7%, respectively. Of patients tested (n = 347), the most common HRR genes tested were BRCA (91.6%) and ATM (47.3%). Conclusion: Overall testing rates were low, with physicians mostly testing patients they considered higher risk. Increased awareness and education are needed to encourage broader testing, to understand familial risk and to identify patients with worse outcomes or those eligible for life-prolonging treatments.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is cancer that has spread beyond the prostate gland and that no longer responds to hormone therapy. Genetic testing is now recommended for patients with mCRPC to help doctors understand familial risk and identify patients who may benefit from new treatments. The authors asked doctors questions about their patients, such as their age, symptoms and genetic testing. The authors found that overall genetic testing rates were low, with doctors mostly testing patients they thought were at higher risk of developing cancer. Increased doctor awareness and education are needed to encourage more genetic testing in mCRPC patients. However, doctors claimed that the cost of these tests was a challenge to conducting genetic testing.