Bimekizumab provided rapid improvements in patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: pooled 16-week results from two phase 3 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess impact of bimekizumab treatment on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), using 16-week data from two phase 3 studies. METHODS: BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; tumour necrosis factor inhibitor inadequate response/intolerance (TNFi-IR)) are phase 3 studies of subcutaneous bimekizumab 160 mg Q4W; both were double-blind and placebo-controlled to 16 weeks. Patients were randomised 3:2:1 to bimekizumab, placebo or reference (subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg Q2W) in BE OPTIMAL; 2:1 to bimekizumab or placebo in BE COMPLETE. Patient-reported outcomes for pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL are reported to week 16 using pooled and individual study data for bimekizumab and placebo patients. RESULTS: 1073/1112 (96.5%) patients completed week 16 (bimekizumab:| 677/698 [97.0%]; placebo: 396/414 [95.7%]). Bimekizumab-treated patients achieved rapid improvements vs placebo in pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL by week 4, after a single dose. Improvements continued to week 16 for all patient-reported outcomes, including Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; mean (95% CI) change from baseline: bimekizumab: -|25.2 [-27.2, -23.1]; placebo:| -|5.7 [-8.2, -3.3]) and FACIT-Fatigue (bimekizumab: 4.5 [3.9, 5.1]; placebo: 1.1 [0.3, 2.0]); both nominal p<0.001. Greater proportions of bimekizumab-treated patients achieved minimal clinically important differences for patient-reported symptoms vs placebo, including FACIT-Fatigue (bimekizumab: 53.1%; placebo: 36.3%) and HAQ-DI (bimekizumab:| 53.0%; placebo: 28.7%); both nominal p<0.001. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab treatment demonstrated rapid and greater improvements in patient-reported pain, fatigue, physical function and HRQoL to week 16 vs placebo in bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03895203; NCT03896581.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]). CONCLUSIONS: Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Risankizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]). CONCLUSIONS: Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the 52-Week Efficacy of Bimekizumab Versus Secukinumab and Ixekizumab for the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: A previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab. METHODS: Individual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: At week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Effect of bimekizumab on patient-reported disease impact in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 1-year results from two phase 3 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 1-year bimekizumab efficacy in PsA from the patient perspective using the 12-item PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire. METHODS: BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; biologic DMARD [bDMARD]-naïve), BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; inadequate response/intolerance to TNF inhibitors [TNFi-IR]) and BE VITAL (NCT04009499; open-label extension) assessed bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks in patients with PsA. Post hoc analyses of patient-reported disease impact, assessed by the PsAID-12 questionnaire, are reported to 1 year (collected to Week 40 in BE COMPLETE). RESULTS: Overall, 1,112 total patients were included (698 bimekizumab, 414 placebo). Rapid improvements observed with bimekizumab treatment at Week 4 continued to Week 16 and were sustained to 1 year. At 1 year, mean (SE) change from baseline in PsAID-12 total score was comparable between bimekizumab-randomized patients and patients who switched to bimekizumab at Week 16 (bDMARD-naïve bimekizumab -2.3 [0.1], placebo/bimekizumab -2.2 [0.1]; TNFi-IR bimekizumab -2.5 [0.1], placebo/bimekizumab -2.2 [0.2]). Proportions of bimekizumab-randomized patients achieving clinically meaningful within-patient improvement (≥3-point decrease from baseline) at Week 16 were sustained to 1 year (bDMARD-naïve 49.0%; TNFi-IR 48.5%) and were similar for placebo/bimekizumab patients (bDMARD-naïve 44.4%; TNFi-IR 40.6%). Across studies and arms, 35.3% to 47.8% of patients had minimal or no symptom impact at 1 year. Improvements were observed to 1 year across all single-item domains, including pain, fatigue and skin problems. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab treatment resulted in rapid and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in disease impact up to 1 year in bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patients with PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BE OPTIMAL: NCT03895203; BE COMPLETE: NCT03896581; BE VITAL: NCT04009499 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Improvement in work productivity among psoriatic arthritis patients treated with biologic or targeted synthetic drugs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Capacity to work is impacted by psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Our objective was to describe the course of work productivity and leisure activity in patients with PsA treated with biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified all trials and observational studies published January 1, 2010-October 22, 2021, reporting work productivity using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) in patients with PsA treated with b/tsDMARDs. Outcomes for WPAI domains (absenteeism, presenteeism, total work productivity, and activity impairment) were collected at baseline and time point closest to 24 weeks of treatment. A random effects meta-analysis of single means was conducted to calculate an overall absolute mean change from baseline for each WPAI domain. RESULTS: Twelve studies (ten randomized controlled and two observational) assessing patients treated with adalimumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, or upadacitinib were analysed. Among 3741 employed patients, overall mean baseline scores were 11.4%, 38.7%, 42.7%, and 48.9% for absenteeism, presenteeism, total work productivity impairment, and activity impairment, respectively. Estimated absolute mean improvements (95% confidence interval) to week 24 were 2.4 percentage points (%p) (0.6, 4.1), 17.8%p (16.2,19.3), 17.6%p (15.9,19.4), and 19.3%p (17.6, 21.0) respectively, leading to a mean relative improvement of 41% for total work productivity. The change in work outcomes in the b/tsDMARDs appeared similar. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature review and meta-analysis confirmed that patients with active PsA have a substantially reduced capacity to work and participate in leisure activities. Substantial improvements across various WPAI domains were noted after 24 weeks of b/tsDMARD treatment, especially in presenteeism, total work productivity, and activity impairment. These findings may be useful for reimbursement purposes and in the context of shared decision-making. This systematic literature review (SLR) of randomized clinical trials and observational studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs b/tsDMARDs in patients with PsA found that at treatment introduction, patients presented with a 42.7% mean productivity loss per week as assessed by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) Questionnaire. Through a meta-analysis comparing before/after values without adjustment for placebo response, we found that after 24 weeks of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, there was a mean absolute improvement of 17.6 percentage points and a mean relative improvement of 41% in total work productivity, with similar magnitudes of improvement in time spent at work and regular activities outside of work. These results provide clinical-, regulatory- and reimbursement decision-makers with data on the potential societal and socio-economic benefits of b/tsDMARDs in PsA.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has a major impact on patients' lives, including their ability to work by causing absence and reducing productivity. By pooling together published studies (12 studies, corresponding to 3741 patients) and comparing what patients reported before starting treatment to during treatment, we found that over the course of treatment with biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), patients with PsA had an average of 18% higher total work productivity, translating to a 41% reduced impact of PsA at the group level (without looking at comparisons to a placebo response). It is important for health professionals and patients to know that work outcomes affected by PsA are improved when patients take b/tsDMARDS.

Validity and score interpretation of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease: an analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 trials of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate psychometric performance of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) total and individual item scores in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to estimate score change thresholds and scores corresponding to different levels of symptom/impact severity. METHODS: Data up to week 16 from 1252 patients with active PsA enrolled in two randomised controlled trials of bimekizumab (BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581)) were used to assess construct validity (correlations with other patient-reported outcomes), known-groups validity (based on Minimal Disease Activity index, Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score), reliability (Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)) and responsiveness (sensitivity to change). Clinically meaningful within-patient improvement thresholds were estimated by anchor-based and distribution-based analyses, and symptom/impact severity thresholds were estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PsAID-12 total score at baseline was 4.19 (1.94). PsAID-12 scores demonstrated good convergent validity and good known-groups validity. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC ≥ 0.70) were also good. Responsiveness was acceptable (correlations ≥0.30 for most scores). Improvement thresholds were estimated at 1.5-2 points for the PsAID-12 total score and 2 or 3 points for item scores. Thresholds for different levels of symptom/impact severity could be derived for most PsAID-12 items. CONCLUSIONS: The PsAID-12 demonstrated robust psychometric properties in a large sample of patients with active PsA, supporting its use as a fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome in this population. Furthermore, thresholds for score interpretation were derived.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12-24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12-24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank. RESULTS: The NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.

Achievement of more stringent disease control is associated with reduced burden on workplace and household productivity: results from long-term certolizumab pegol treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) impacts the physical health and functional ability of patients, leading to reduced productivity. High unemployment rates and absence due to sickness have been reported in patients with PsA. Objectives: This post hoc study investigated certolizumab pegol treatment impact on workplace and household productivity in patients with PsA, and assessed whether achievement of more stringent disease control was associated with greater improvements in productivity. Design: RAPID-PsA was a 216-week phase III trial. Methods: This post hoc study used a generalised estimating equations (GEE) model to examine the disease activity association, measured using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), and workplace and household productivity, assessed using an arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS). The GEE model estimated the mean cumulative number of days patients meeting different disease control criteria were affected by absenteeism or presenteeism in the workplace and household. Results: In all, 273 patients were randomised to certolizumab pegol and 183 (67.0%) completed Week 216. At baseline, 60.8% of patients were employed outside the home. Improved disease control, measured using ACR and DAPSA criteria, was associated with fewer cumulative days affected by workplace absenteeism through Week 216: ACR70: 4.1 days, ACR50 to <70: 7.7, ACR20 to <50: 20.9,

Survival and treatment patterns of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in France - a cohort study using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS).

Over the past decade, several drugs have been approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). This retrospective study, using the French National Healthcare database (SNDS), describes the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with RRMM treated in real-world clinical practice in France. Patients were adults, with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, who initiated second-line (2L) treatment approved for use in France between 2014 and 2018; this included bortezomib, carfilzomib, daratumumab, ixazomib, lenalidomide, or pomalidomide. Data were analyzed overall, by first-line (1L) autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) status and by lenalidomide treatment status at 2L. In total, 12987 patients with RRMM were included in the study (mean age 69.5 years); 27% received an ASCT at 1L, and 30% received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L. Overall, and among the ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups, most patients received a bortezomib-based regimen at 1L, whereas lenalidomide-based regimens were most common at 2L. Among patients who received a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, this was most often a proteasome inhibitor-based regimen. Mortality rate was 26.1/100 person-years, and median (95% confidence interval) survival from 2L initiation was 32.4 (31.2-33.6) months. Survival differed by various factors, shorter survival was reported in the non-ASCT group, those receiving a lenalidomide-sparing regimen at 2L, older patients (≥ 70 years), and those with multiple comorbidities. This analysis provides insight into the real-world use of approved novel MM treatments and highlights an ongoing unmet need to improve outcomes, particularly for selected patient groups.

Efficacy and Treatment Burden of Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Intravitreal Ranibizumab Treat-and-Extend Regimens at 2 Years: Network Meta-Analysis Incorporating Individual Patient Data Meta-Regression and Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

PURPOSE: To compare visual outcomes and treatment burden between intravitreally administered aflibercept (IVT-AFL) and ranibizumab (RBZ) treat-and-extend (T&E) regimens in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) at 2 years. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL in October 2018. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and/or individual patient data meta-regression was used to connect ALTAIR (assessing IVT-AFL T&E) with other studies, adjusting for between-trial differences in baseline visual acuity and age or baseline visual acuity, age, and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) status. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results, including direct MAIC between IVT-AFL T&E (ALTAIR) and RBZ T&E (CANTREAT and TREX-AMD trials). RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (ALTAIR, VIEW 1 and 2, CATT, CANTREAT, and TREX) were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL T&E was assessed in one study, ALTAIR (n = 255), while RBZ T&E was assessed in two trials (n = 327). At 2 years, the median difference (95% credibility interval) between IVT-AFL T&E and RBZ T&E regarding the numbers of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters gained was not significant (M1: - 2.29 [- 8.10, 3.58]; M2: - 0.55 [- 6.34, 5.29]). IVT-AFL T&E was associated with significantly fewer injections than RBZ-T&E (M1: - 6.12 [- 7.60, - 4.65]; M2: - 5.93 [- 7.42, - 4.45]). Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main scenarios. CONCLUSION: Patients with wAMD receiving an IVT-AFL T&E regimen achieved and maintained improvement in visual acuity with fewer injections over 2 years compared with RBZ T&E. IVT-AFL T&E may therefore serve as the optimal therapy for wAMD, as it was associated with clinical efficacy and minimized treatment burden.

Characteristics of doctor-shoppers: a systematic literature review.

Objective: Doctor-shopping has significant consequences for patients and payers and can indicate misuse of drugs, polypharmacy, less continuity of care, and increased medical expenses. This study reviewed the literature describing doctor-shoppers in the adult population. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in PubMed and supplemented by a Google search of grey literature. Overall, 2885 records were identified; 43 papers served as a source of definition of a doctor-shopper, disease, treatment, patient characteristics, patient special needs, country. Results: Definitions of doctor-shopping were heterogeneous. Overall, 40% of studies examined the use of opioids, antidepressants, or psychoactive drugs, while the others focused on chronic or frequent diseases. Most studies were conducted in countries with easy access to healthcare resources (USA, France, Taiwan, Hong Kong). The prevalence of doctor-shopping ranged from 0.5% among opioid users in the USA to 25% of patients registered at general practices in Japan. Comorbidities, active substance abuse, greater distance from healthcare facility, younger age, longer disease and poor patient satisfaction increased doctor-shopping. Conclusions: Knowing the characteristics of doctor-shoppers may help identify such patients and reduce the associated waste of medical resources, but concerns about the misuse of drugs or healthcare resources should not prevent proper disease management.