Baseline Disease Activity Predicts Achievement of cDAPSA Treatment Targets With Apremilast: Phase III Results in DMARD-naïve Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The probability of achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) treatment targets (remission [REM], low disease activity [LDA]) was evaluated following apremilast monotherapy in disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) based on baseline disease activity. METHODS: This post hoc probability analysis of PALACE 4, a phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study, evaluated shifting across cDAPSA categories from baseline to week 52 and included DMARD-naïve patients receiving apremilast 30 mg BID with available baseline cDAPSA data. Changes in articular/extraarticular manifestations were evaluated in patients with week 52 cDAPSA components. cDAPSA treatment target achievement was assessed in a subgroup with baseline extraarticular PsA manifestations (skin involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis). RESULTS: Of 175 apremilast-treated patients in the probability analysis, 66.3% were in high disease activity (HDA) and 31.4% in moderate disease activity (ModDA) at baseline. Approximately twice as many patients in ModDA at baseline reached REM/LDA at week 52 vs those in HDA (61.7% vs 28.2%). Achieving cDAPSA treatment targets was associated with reductions in articular (swollen/tender joints) and extraarticular (skin involvement, enthesitis, dactylitis, functional disability) disease activity. Similar treatment target achievement rates were observed in the subgroup with ≥ 1 extraarticular PsA manifestation (n = 126; ModDA: 66.7%, HDA: 32.2%). CONCLUSION: Apremilast-treated patients with baseline ModDA had higher probability of achieving cDAPSA treatment targets than patients with HDA. Resolution and/or near resolution of articular and/or extraarticular PsA manifestations was achieved by patients in REM/LDA at week 52. Consistent treatment target achievement was observed in patients with 1 or multiple extraarticular manifestations of active PsA.

Telemedicine and psoriatic arthritis: best practices and considerations for dermatologists and rheumatologists.

Telemedicine encompasses a variety of modalities that allow for the remote assessment and treatment of patients. The technologies, services, and tools available for telemedicine in the USA are increasingly becoming an integral part of the healthcare system to bridge the gaps in care that can arise from geographic and/or socioeconomic obstacles and provider shortages. Telemedicine can be applied to a spectrum of clinical areas, including rheumatic diseases. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, inflammatory, multisystem disease with predominately skin and joint manifestations. PsA is often misdiagnosed and/or undiagnosed, which can lead to worse patient outcomes, including irreversible joint erosion and damage. The difficulties in diagnosing and managing PsA are confounded by the emergence and increased use of telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine presents the opportunity to increase access to healthcare by rheumatologists and dermatologists to improve training and education regarding PsA and to decrease time attributed to office visits associated with PsA. However, challenges in diagnosing PsA without a thorough in-person physical examination by a trained rheumatologist or dermatologist exist. We provide an overview of the ways telemedicine can be incorporated into clinical care and optimized for patients with PsA; characteristic clinical features of PsA, with a focus on skin and joint signs and symptoms; screening tools to be used in routine clinical care; assessments that can be used to evaluate quality of life, functional ability, and disease activity in PsA; and resources and recommendations for the development of future telemedicine use in rheumatology and dermatology. Key Points • Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are often misdiagnosed and/or undiagnosed. • Telemedicine can improve access to healthcare by rheumatologists and dermatologists. • Telemedicine can be incorporated into clinical care and optimized for managing PsA.

Apremilast monotherapy for long-term treatment of active psoriatic arthritis in DMARD-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast monotherapy was evaluated up to 5 years in PALACE 4 (fourth PsA Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy study) DMARD-naïve patients with PsA. METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 30 mg or apremilast 20 mg twice a day. Placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast at week 16 or 24. Double-blind apremilast continued to week 52, with a 4-year open-label extension (≤260 weeks of exposure). Analyses through week 260 were based on observed data. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients were treated. Among patients randomized to apremilast 30 mg at baseline, 45.5% completed week 260. At study end, 24.8% reported conventional synthetic DMARD or steroid use for any reason. At week 260, 65.8%/39.0%/20.3% of apremilast 30 mg patients achieved ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 responses, respectively. PsA sign and symptom improvements were sustained up to week 260 with continued treatment, including reductions in swollen (84.8%) and tender (76.4%) joint counts. Among apremilast 30 mg patients with baseline enthesitis or dactylitis, 71.2% achieved a Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score of 0 and 95.1% achieved a dactylitis count of 0. Over 50% of patients achieved a HAQ Disability Index minimal clinically important difference (≥0.35). In patients with ≥3% baseline psoriasis-involved body surface area, 60.3% and 47.6% achieved ≥50% and ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. Patients continuing apremilast 20 mg also demonstrated consistent, sustained improvements. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, headache, upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis. No new safety concerns were observed long term. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast led to sustained PsA efficacy up to 260 weeks and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

A Molecular Signature Response Classifier to Predict Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors: The NETWORK-004 Prospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Timely matching of patients to beneficial targeted therapy is an unmet need in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that predicts which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapy would have wide clinical utility. METHODS: The protein-protein interaction map specific to the rheumatoid arthritis pathophysiology and gene expression data in blood patient samples was used to discover a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy. Inadequate response predictions were validated in blood samples from the CERTAIN cohort and a multicenter blinded prospective observational clinical study (NETWORK-004) among 391 targeted therapy-naïve and 113 TNFi-exposed patient samples. The primary endpoint evaluated the ability of the MSRC to identify patients who inadequately responded to TNFi therapy at 6 months according to ACR50. Additional endpoints evaluated the prediction of inadequate response at 3 and 6 months by ACR70, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI. RESULTS: The 23-feature molecular signature considers pathways upstream and downstream of TNFα involvement in RA pathophysiology. Predictive performance was consistent between the CERTAIN cohort and NETWORK-004 study. The NETWORK-004 study met primary and secondary endpoints. A molecular signature of non-response was detected in 45% of targeted therapy-naïve patients. The MSRC had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64 and patients were unlikely to adequately respond to TNFi therapy according to ACR50 at 6 months with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval 2.0-8.3, p value 0.0001). Odds ratios (3.4-8.8) were significant (p value < 0.01) for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months, with AUC values up to 0.74. Among TNFi-exposed patients, the MSRC had an AUC of up to 0.83 and was associated with significant odds ratios of 3.3-26.6 by ACR, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI metrics. CONCLUSION: The MSRC stratifies patients according to likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapy and provides patient-specific data to guide therapy choice in RA for targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients.

A blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) integrating next-generation RNA sequencing data with clinical features predicts the likelihood that a patient with rheumatoid arthritis will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapy. Treatment selection guided by test results, with likely inadequate responders appropriately redirected to a different therapy, could improve response rates to TNFi therapies, generate healthcare cost savings, and increase rheumatologists' confidence in prescribing decisions and altered treatment choices. The MSRC described in this study predicts the likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies among targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients in a multicenter, 24-week blinded prospective clinical study: NETWORK-004. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response are less likely to have an adequate response to TNFi therapies than those patients lacking the signature according to ACR50, ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28-CRP with significant odds ratios of 3.4­8.8 for targeted therapy-naïve patients and 3.3­26.6 for TNFi-exposed patients. This MSRC provides a solution to the long-standing need for precision medicine tools to predict drug response in rheumatoid arthritis­a heterogeneous and progressive disease with an abundance of therapeutic options. These data validate the performance of the MSRC in a blinded prospective clinical study of targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi therapy-exposed patients.

Apremilast monotherapy in DMARD-naive psoriatic arthritis patients: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled PALACE 4 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The PALACE 4 trial evaluated apremilast monotherapy in patients with active PsA who were DMARD-naive. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day or apremilast 30 mg twice a day. At week 16 or 24, placebo patients were rerandomized to apremilast. Double-blind apremilast treatment continued to week 52, with extension up to 4 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ⩾20% improvement in ACR response criteria (ACR20) at week 16; secondary endpoints included the mean change in the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 527 patients with mean disease duration of 3.4 years and high disease activity were randomized and received treatment. More apremilast patients achieved ACR20 response at week 16 [placebo, 15.9%; 20 mg, 28.0% (P = 0.0062); 30 mg, 30.7% (P = 0.0010)]. The mean HAQ-DI improvements were -0.17 (20 mg; P = 0.0008) and -0.21 (30 mg; P < 0.0001) vs 0.03 (placebo). Both apremilast doses showed significant ACR50 responses vs placebo at week 16 and improvements in secondary efficacy measures (swollen/tender joint counts) and psoriasis assessments, with sustained improvements through week 52. Common adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks were diarrhoea, nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection; most events were mild or moderate. Serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were comparable between groups. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient. CONCLUSIONS: In DMARD-naive patients, apremilast monotherapy improved PsA signs/symptoms over 52 weeks and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01307423.

Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha Experienced Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compile all available evidence regarding the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitors, non-TNF biologics, and tofacitinib for TNF-experienced patients who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and rheumatology conference abstracts was performed to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting American College of Rheumatology response rates (ACR 20/50/70) for adult patients with RA who switched from at least 1 TNF to another TNF or a non-TNF therapy. A direct random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate ACR 20/50/70 response rates for TNF and non-TNF therapies. Separate analyses were conducted among 3-, 6-, and 12-month observational studies and for 6-month RCTs. FINDINGS: A total of 18 observational studies and 6 RCTs were selected. Among 3-month observational studies, the percentages of ACR20/50/70 responders switching to another TNF were similar to those switching to a non-TNF biologic (ACR20, 54.5% vs 58.6%; ACR50, 33.3% vs 33.3%; and ACR70, 13.0% vs 14.6%, respectively). Among 6-month observational studies, the percentages of TNF ACR20/50/70 responders were higher than those of non-TNF responders (ACR20, 67.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 50.4% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 24.9% vs 11.6%). Among 6-month RCTs, the percentages of non-TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 responders were similar to those in the 6-month non-TNF observational studies (ACR20, 50.7% vs 50.4%; ACR50, 27.5% vs 26.6%; and ACR70, 11.9% vs 11.6%). For 12-month observational studies, TNF biologic ACR20/50/70 percentages were higher than those of non-TNF therapies (ACR20, 72.2% vs 57.0%; ACR50, 42.1% vs 28.9%; and ACR70, 22.9% vs 10.0%). IMPLICATIONS: For TNF-experienced patients with RA, subsequent TNF therapy and non-TNF biologic therapy have comparable efficacy.

Integrating health information technology and electronic health records into the management of fibromyalgia.

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a widespread chronic pain condition that represents a significant economic burden for patients and health care systems. Effective treatment of FM requires a multidisciplinary management strategy that incorporates pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy. Steps such as reducing the time to diagnosis and improving treatment decisions can result in significant cost savings and improved patient outcomes. An FM management framework, based on patient education and goal setting, has emphasized the need for ongoing care of patients with FM. In this article, we discuss how this framework could be further improved through the use of health information technology, including electronic health records. Health information technology/electronic health records can be incorporated at every stage of patient care, from initial presentation to diagnosis, through to making treatment decisions and maintaining ongoing patient management. This can lead to a number of potential benefits for patients with FM (by improving their level of care), primary care providers (by creating greater efficiencies), and the health care system (by reducing costs). Ultimately, the treatment and care of patients with FM need be no more burdensome to primary care providers than any other chronic illness. Through the greater efficiencies and optimized treatment approaches facilitated by health information technology/electronic health records, it should be possible to drive best-practice care for patients with FM and improve patient outcomes.

African American patients with gout: efficacy and safety of febuxostat vs allopurinol.

BACKGROUND: African Americans are twice as likely as Caucasians to develop gout, but they are less likely to be treated with urate-lowering therapy (ULT). Furthermore, African Americans typically present with more comorbidities associated with gout, such as hypertension, obesity, and renal impairment. We determined the efficacy and safety of ULT with febuxostat or allopurinol in African American subjects with gout and associated comorbidities and in comparison to Caucasian gout subjects. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the 6-month Phase 3 CONFIRMS trial. Eligible gouty subjects with baseline serum urate (sUA) ≥ 8.0 mg/dL were randomized 1:1:1 to receive febuxostat 40 mg, febuxostat 80 mg, or allopurinol (300 mg or 200 mg depending on renal function) daily. All subjects received gout flare prophylaxis. Primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with sUA < 6.0 mg/dL at the final visit. Additional endpoints included the proportion of subjects with mild or with moderate renal impairment who achieved a target sUA < 6.0 mg/dL at final visit. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 2,269 subjects enrolled, 10.0% were African American and 82.1% were Caucasian. African American subjects were mostly male (89.5%), obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2; 67.1%), with mean baseline sUA of 9.8 mg/dL and mean duration of gout of 10.4 years. The proportions of African American subjects with a baseline history of diabetes, renal impairment, or cardiovascular disease were significantly higher compared to Caucasians (p < 0.001). ULT with febuxostat 80 mg was superior to both febuxostat 40 mg (p < 0.001) and allopurinol (p = 0.004). Febuxostat 40 mg was comparable in efficacy to allopurinol. Significantly more African American subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment achieved sUA < 6.0 mg/dL in the febuxostat 80 group than in either the febuxostat 40 mg or allopurinol group (p < 0.05). Efficacy rates in all treatment groups regardless of renal function were comparable between African American and Caucasian subjects, as were AE rates. CONCLUSIONS: In African American subjects with significant comorbidities, febuxostat 80 mg is significantly more efficacious than either febuxostat 40 mg or allopurinol 200/300 mg. Febuxostat was well tolerated in this African American population.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/15.

Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) who achieved radiographic nonprogression at the end of the double-blind phase. METHODS: Patients who achieved radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline in total Sharp score ≤ 0 at 12 months) with abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) or MTX alone were eligible for this analysis. Clinical outcomes were remission, defined by 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP), low Disease Activity Score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and tender and swollen joint counts. Safety was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: Patients in the abatacept plus MTX and MTX monotherapy groups had similar baseline characteristics and were similar to the overall study population. The proportion of patients who achieved DAS28 (CRP) remission or LDAS was greater with abatacept plus MTX vs MTX alone [43.2% vs 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 57.4% vs 40.6% (p = 0.008), respectively]. More patients receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved key ACR responses, including major clinical response (27.3% vs 11.9%; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More MTX-naive patients with early RA who achieved radiographic nonprogression taking abatacept plus MTX also achieved DAS28 (CRP)-defined remission and LDAS compared with patients who received MTX alone, supporting the use of abatacept as a first-line biologic in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The urate-lowering efficacy and safety of febuxostat in the treatment of the hyperuricemia of gout: the CONFIRMS trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare urate-lowering (UL) efficacy and safety of daily febuxostat and allopurinol in subjects with gout and serum urate (sUA) > or = 8.0 mg/dL in a six-month trial. METHODS: Subjects (n = 2,269) were randomized to febuxostat 40 mg or 80 mg, or allopurinol 300 mg (200 mg in moderate renal impairment). Endpoints included the proportion of all subjects with sUA <6.0 mg/dL and the proportion of subjects with mild/moderate renal impairment and sUA <6.0 mg/dL. Safety assessments included blinded adjudication of each cardiovascular (CV) adverse event (AE) and death. RESULTS: Comorbidities included: renal impairment (65%); obesity (64%); hyperlipidemia (42%); and hypertension (53%). In febuxostat 40 mg, febuxostat 80 mg, and allopurinol groups, primary endpoint was achieved in 45%, 67%, and 42%, respectively. Febuxostat 40 mg UL was statistically non-inferior to allopurinol, but febuxostat 80 mg was superior to both (P < 0.001). Achievement of target sUA in subjects with renal impairment was also superior with febuxostat 80 mg (72%; P < 0.001) compared with febuxostat 40 mg (50%) or allopurinol (42%), but febuxostat 40 mg showed greater efficacy than allopurinol (P = 0.021). Rates of AEs did not differ across treatment groups. Adjudicated (APTC) CV event rates were 0.0% for febuxostat 40 mg and 0.4% for both febuxostat 80 mg and allopurinol. One death occurred in each febuxostat group and three in the allopurinol group. CONCLUSIONS: Urate-lowering efficacy of febuxostat 80 mg exceeded that of febuxostat 40 mg and allopurinol (300/200 mg), which were comparable. In subjects with mild/moderate renal impairment, both febuxostat doses were more efficacious than allopurinol and equally safe. At the doses tested, safety of febuxostat and allopurinol was comparable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00430248.