The COMPARE head-to-head, randomized controlled trial of SEL-212 (pegadricase plus rapamycin-containing nanoparticle, ImmTOR™) versus pegloticase for refractory gout.

OBJECTIVES: Serum urate (SU) lowering with PEGylated uricases in gout can reduce flares and tophi. However, treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies adversely affect safety and efficacy and the currently approved PEGylated uricase pegloticase requires twice-monthly infusions. Investigational SEL-212 therapy aims to promote uricase-specific tolerance via monthly sequential infusions of a proprietary rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (ImmTOR) and pegadricase. METHODS: COMPARE was a randomized, phase 2, open-label trial of SEL-212 vs pegloticase in adults with refractory gout. SEL-212 [ImmTOR (0.15 mg/kg) and pegadricase (0.2 mg/kg)] was infused monthly or pegloticase (8 mg) twice monthly for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with SU <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of the time during 3 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were mean SU, gout flares, number of tender and/or swollen joints and safety. RESULTS: During months 3 and 6 combined, numerically more participants achieved and maintained a SU <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of the time with SEL-212 vs pegloticase (53.0% vs 46.0%, P = 0.181). The percentage reductions in SU levels were statistically greater during months 3 and 6 with SEL-212 vs pegloticase (-73.79% and -47.96%, P = 0.0161). Reductions in gout flare incidence and number of tender and/or swollen joints were comparable between treatments. There were numerical differences between the most common treatment-related adverse events of interest with SEL-212 and pegloticase: gout flares (60.2% vs 50.6%), infections (25.3% vs 18.4%) and infusion-related reactions (15.7% vs 11.5%), respectively. Stomatitis (and related terms) was experienced by eight participants (9.6%) with SEL-212 and none with pegloticase. Stomatitis, a known event for rapamycin, was associated with ImmTOR only. CONCLUSIONS: SEL-212 efficacy and tolerability were comparable to pegloticase in refractory gout. This was associated with a substantial reduction in treatment burden with SEL-212 due to decreased infusion frequency vs pegloticase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03905512.

GRAPPA 2023 Annual Meeting Report: Hot Topic Session on Measurement of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Psoriatic Disease.

During the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2023 annual meeting, the International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) psoriatic disease (PsD) workgroup presented an update on their efforts toward measurement of musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms in patients with PsD. Dr. Joseph Merola initiated the presentation emphasizing the vital importance of assessing MSK symptoms in patients with psoriasis (PsO) regardless of whether they have been diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). He also discussed existing challenges for evaluating MSK symptoms in patients with PsO without a PsA diagnosis. Dr. Lourdes Perez-Chada then presented their work on the development and validation of the IDEOM Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (MSK-Q), a patient-reported questionnaire developed by the IDEOM to capture the intensity and impact of MSK symptoms on quality of life in patients with PsO with or without PsA. Dr. Perez-Chada also introduced a set of ongoing studies employing the IDEOM MSK-Q, highlighting the potential effects of the data collected through this innovative tool.

Report of the IDEOM Meeting Adjacent to the GRAPPA 2023 Annual Meeting.

The nonprofit organization International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) is committed to improving the implementation of patient-centered outcome measures in dermatologic disease. At a conference adjacent to the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2023 annual meeting, the IDEOM Psoriatic Disease Workgroup presented updates on recent efforts in outcome measure advancement. Dr. Alice Gottlieb presented the preliminary findings of a study within the Mount Sinai Health System that aims to determine how well the IDEOM musculoskeletal (MSK) symptom framework, which uses the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) and the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) instruments, functions in clinical settings. Drs. Joseph Merola and Lourdes Perez-Chada updated attendees on the IDEOM MSK-Q, a 9-item patient-reported questionnaire designed to measure the intensity and impact of MSK symptoms on the quality of life in patients with psoriasis (PsO) with or without psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Dr. Vibeke Strand summarized the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2023 conference sessions. Dr. April Armstrong discussed the preliminary findings of a multicentered study designed to validate the 7-item Dermatology Treatment Satisfaction Instrument (DermSat-7) among patients with PsO. She also introduced the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treatment Satisfaction Instrument, a tool that seeks to capture the level of patient satisfaction with current therapy for PsO and PsA. This report summarizes the developments discussed at the IDEOM PsO and PsA research workgroups during the GRAPPA 2023 annual meeting.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors. METHODS: ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04134728.

Long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with or without background csDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with/without conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs in RA. METHODS: The analyses evaluated two open-label extensions (OLEs): EXTEND and MONARCH OLE, which included patients from six randomized trials. Patients received sarilumab 200 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w) for at least 264 weeks up to 516 weeks (EXTEND: Sarilumab Monotherapy and Sarilumab + csDMARD groups) or for 276 weeks (MONARCH OLE: Continuation and Switch groups). Primary endpoints included safety, immunogenicity and changes in laboratory parameters. Secondary endpoints included clinical signs and symptoms along with health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) questionnaires. RESULTS: The Sarilumab Monotherapy (n = 111), Continuation (n = 165) and Switch (n = 155) groups received sarilumab monotherapy, while the Sarilumab + csDMARD group (n = 1910) received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs. Incidence of one or more treatment-emergent adverse events was 126 (Sarilumab Monotherapy group), 169 (Sarilumab + csDMARD group), 159 (Continuation group) and 159 (Switch group) events/100 patient-years. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. Neutropenia was not associated with an increased incidence of infections. Most neutropenia cases normalized on-treatment. Adverse events of special interests, such as malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism and gastrointestinal perforations, were rare. Immunogenicity was low and not associated with hypersensitivity reactions or discontinuations due to lack or loss of efficacy. Improvements in clinical signs and symptoms and HRQOL, observed during the initial blinded trials, were maintained throughout the OLE assessment period. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term sarilumab treatment with/without csDMARDs in patients with RA revealed no new safety findings. Efficacy and HRQOL were maintained or further increased over the open-label assessment period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EXTEND, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01146652, NCT01146652; MONARCH OLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02332590, NCT02332590.

Systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease: a conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive disease.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a framework by which experts define disease subsets in systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). METHODS: A conceptual framework for subclinical, clinical and progressive ILD was provided to 83 experts, asking them to use the framework and classify actual SSc-ILD patients. Each patient profile was designed to be classified by at least four experts in terms of severity and risk of progression at baseline; progression was based on 1-year follow-up data. A consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts agreed. Experts provided information on which items were important in determining classification. RESULTS: Forty-four experts (53%) completed the survey. Consensus was achieved on the dimensions of severity (75%, 60 of 80 profiles), risk of progression (71%, 57 of 80 profiles) and progressive ILD (60%, 24 of 40 profiles). For profiles achieving consensus, most were classified as clinical ILD (92%), low risk (54%) and stable (71%). Severity and disease progression overlapped in terms of framework items that were most influential in classifying patients (forced vital capacity, extent of lung involvement on high resolution chest CT [HRCT]); risk of progression was influenced primarily by disease duration. CONCLUSIONS: Using our proposed conceptual framework, international experts were able to achieve a consensus on classifying SSc-ILD patients along the dimensions of disease severity, risk of progression and progression over time. Experts rely on similar items when classifying disease severity and progression: a combination of spirometry and gas exchange and quantitative HRCT.

International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) - Report from the 2022 Annual Meeting.

BACKGROUND: The International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of evidence-based, consensus-driven outcome measures in dermatological diseases. Researchers and stakeholders from various backgrounds collaborate to develop these objective benchmark metrics to further advance treatment and management of dermatological conditions. SUMMARY: The 2022 IDEOM Annual Meeting was held on June 17-18, 2022. Leaders and stakeholders from the hidradenitis suppurativa, acne, vitiligo, actinic keratosis, alopecia areata, itch, cutaneous lymphoma, and psoriatic disease workgroups discussed the progress of their respective outcome-measures research. This report summarizes each workgroup's updates from 2022 and their next steps as established during the 2022 IDEOM Annual Meeting. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(12):1153-1159 doi:10.36849/JDD.7615.

A pilot study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treprostinil in the treatment of calcinosis in systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of oral treprostinil in preventing progression of SSc-associated calcinosis. METHODS: This prospective open-label study enrolled 12 SSc patients meeting 2013 ACR/EULAR classification criteria with confirmed clinical and radiographic evidence of one or more calcinosis deposit in the hands. Patients received oral treprostinil for 1 year. Primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and percentage of patients without radiographic progression of calcinosis at 1 year (<25% increase in Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium radiographic score). Secondary endpoints included 1-year changes in Scleroderma HAQ (SHAQ), Cochin Hand Functional Scale, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36), Raynaud Condition Score and patient/physician assessment of calcinosis severity. RESULTS: Twelve female patients were enrolled, half with diffuse cutaneous disease; median age was 55 years (range 35-68 years). Five patients completed the study. Seven patients withdrew due to intolerable adverse effects (n = 3), intercurrent unrelated illness (n = 2, cirrhosis, cancer), progressive SSc (n = 1) and personal reasons (n = 1). Most patients developed headaches and gastrointestinal adverse effects. Four of 11 (36%) patients with 1-year follow-up hand radiographs experienced progression of calcinosis. Of five who completed treatment, calcinosis was stable in four (80%) with progression in one. Based on SF-36 Physical and Mental Component and Domain scores, transition question and SF-6D utility score, all patients who finished the trial reported overall improvement or no change compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: Oral treprostinil was poorly tolerated in SSc patients with calcinosis. Of five patients who completed treatment, most (80%) had documented stability of calcinosis on hand radiographs at 1 year. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02663895.

Inhibition of structural joint damage progression with upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: 1-year outcomes from the SELECT phase 3 program.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inhibition of progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active RA receiving upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with MTX. METHODS: Radiographic progression was assessed in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials. MTX-naïve patients were randomized to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily or MTX monotherapy (SELECT-EARLY, n = 945), while MTX inadequate responders (IRs) were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or adalimumab 40 mg every other week or placebo added to background MTX (SELECT-COMPARE, n = 1629). The mean changes from baseline in modified total Sharp score (mTSS), joint space narrowing and erosion scores were determined. Data were analysed both by linear extrapolation for missing data imputation and treatment switching and as observed. RESULTS: In patients naïve or with limited exposure to MTX (SELECT-EARLY), mean changes from baseline to week 48 in mTSS were 0.03 for upadacitinib 15 mg, 0.14 for upadacitinib 30 mg and 1.00 for MTX based on linear extrapolation (P < 0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs MTX). Among patients with an inadequate response to MTX (SELECT-COMPARE), the mean change from baseline in mTSS was significantly reduced in the upadacitinib 15 mg plus MTX group vs placebo plus MTX (0.28 vs 1.73; P < 0.001). The mean change from baseline in the adalimumab plus MTX group was 0.39. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib monotherapy or in combination with background MTX was effective in inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT02706873 and NCT02629159.

Expert Opinion on Pegloticase with Concomitant Immunomodulatory Therapy in the Treatment of Uncontrolled Gout to Improve Efficacy, Safety, and Durability of Response.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gout is a systemic disease from which some patients develop numerous painful tophi that adversely affect quality of life and functionality. Some patients treated with oral urate-lowering therapy are unable to maintain serum urate levels below 6 mg/dL, and these patients, thus classified as having refractory or uncontrolled gout, often require therapy with pegloticase to reduce symptoms and tophaceous burden. The objective of this expert opinion review is to summarize the available evidence supporting the use of concomitant immunomodulators with pegloticase to prevent development of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) when treating patients with uncontrolled gout. RECENT FINDINGS: Emerging evidence suggests that adding an immunomodulator to pegloticase therapy can substantially increase response rates to double those observed in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. The combination of immunomodulation with pegloticase should be considered in routine clinical practice to improve durability of response, efficacy, and safety among patients with uncontrolled gout who otherwise have limited therapeutic options.

International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM): Report from the 2020 Annual Meeting.

BACKGROUND: The International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) initiative is a non-profit organization that aims to develop evidence-based outcome measurements to evaluate the impact of treatments for patients with dermatological disease. IDEOM includes all key stakeholders in dermatology (patient, physician, industry, insurer, and government) during the process of developing such outcome measurements. SUMMARY: Here, we provide an update of IDEOM activities that were presented at the 2020 IDEOM Virtual Annual Meeting (October 23-24, 2020). During the meeting, multiple IDEOM workgroups (psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, acne, pyoderma gangrenosum, and actinic keratosis) shared their progress to date, as well as future directions in developing and validating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Updates on demonstrating efficacy in clinicals trials by the US Food and Drug Administration are also summarized. KEY MESSAGES: In this report, we summarize the work presented by each IDEOM workgroup (psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, hidradenitis suppurativa, acne, pyoderma gangrenosum, and actinic keratosis) at the 2020 IDEOM Virtual Annual Meeting.

The emerging role of Janus kinase inhibitors in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

Autoimmune and inflammatory diseases are common and diverse, and they can affect nearly any organ system. Much of the pathogenesis of these diseases is related to dysregulated cytokine activity. Historically, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have been treated with medications that nonspecifically suppress the immune system. mAbs that block the action of pathogenic cytokines emerged 2 decades ago and have become widely useful. More recently, agents that simultaneously block multiple pathogenic cytokines via inhibition of the downstream Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway have emerged and are becoming increasingly important. These small-molecule inhibitors, collectively termed JAK inhibitors, are US Food and Drug Administration-approved in a few autoimmune/inflammatory disorders and are being evaluated in many others. Here, we review the biology of the JAK-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway and the use of JAK inhibitors to treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases across medical subspecialties.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. RESULTS: Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined. RESULTS: In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values. CONCLUSION: Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Performance of composite measures used in a trial of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapy or in combination in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine which composite measures are most sensitive to change when measuring psoriatic arthritis (PsA) disease activity, analyses compared the responsiveness of composite measures used in a 48-week randomized, controlled trial of MTX and etanercept in patients with PsA. METHODS: The trial randomised 851 patients to receive weekly: MTX (20 mg/week), etanercept (50 mg/week) or MTX plus etanercept. Dichotomous composite measures examined included ACR 20/50/70 responses, minimal disease activity (MDA) and very low disease activity (VLDA). Continuous composite measures examined included Disease Activity Score (28 joints) using CRP (DAS28-CRP), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS). RESULTS: At week 24, etanercept-treated groups were significantly more effective than MTX monotherapy to achieve ACR 20 (primary end point) and MDA (key secondary end point). When examining score changes from baseline at week 24 across the five continuous composite measures, PASDAS demonstrated relatively greater changes in the etanercept-treated groups compared with MTX monotherapy and had the largest effect size and standardized response. Joint count changes drove overall score changes at week 24 from baseline in all the continuous composite measures except for PASDAS, which was driven by the Physician and Patient Global Assessments. CONCLUSION: PASDAS was the most sensitive continuous composite measure examined with results that mirrored the protocol-defined primary and key secondary outcomes. Composite measures with multiple domains, such as PASDAS, may better quantify change in PsA disease burden. TRAIL REGISTRATION: https://ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02376790.

Dual trajectories of fatigue and disease activity in an inception cohort of adults with systemic lupus erythematosus over 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms reported in patients living with SLE. We aim to: 1) determine if different trajectories of fatigue associate with specific latent classes of disease activity and 2) define the patient characteristics and associated factors in different latent classes. METHODS: Data from an inception cohort of adult patients from the Toronto Lupus Clinic from 1997-2018 were analyzed. Fatigue levels were measured using Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and disease activity by the Adjusted Mean Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) (AMS). Dual latent class trajectory analysis, for fatigue and AMS, was performed. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed the association of baseline variables with class membership. RESULTS: Among 280 patients, 4 dual classes (C) of fatigue and disease activity were identified: C1- lowest disease activity and second highest fatigue trajectory (27%); C2- second highest disease activity and highest fatigue trajectory (30%); C3-moderate disease activity and lowest fatigue trajectory (33%); and C4- highest disease activity and moderate fatigue trajectory (10%). CONCLUSION: 4 distinct latent classes of dual fatigue and disease activity trajectories were identified. Fatigue and disease activity follow distinct trajectories and disease activity alone cannot fully explain fatigue trajectories. Trajectories with higher FSS scores were associated with more fibromyalgia and trajectories with higher disease activity were associated with higher cumulative glucocorticoid use. Higher baseline glucocorticoid use was more likely associated with more fatigue while older age at SLE diagnosis was associated with less fatigue.

Patient-reported outcome measures in systemic lupus erythematosus by a web-based application: A randomized, crossover, agreement study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but not widely used in clinical practice. However, interest in incorporating PROMs into the management of SLE is increasing as PROMs provide a unique insight into the patient's perception of lupus disease activity. The objective was to assess agreement in PROMs answered using a web app versus an outpatient touchscreen among patients with SLE. METHODS: In a crossover RCT, SLE patients answered the following PROMs in a random order using the web app and the outpatient touchscreen: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) Global Health, SLAQ Symptom, SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Fatigue VAS, Patient Global Health VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and an Anchoring Question. Equivalence between the two device types was demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the difference in PROM scores was within the prespecified equivalence margin. Agreement between the two device types was assessed using mixed linear models. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with SLE were included. Equivalence was demonstrated between the two device types for SLAQ Global Health with a difference of -0.21 (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.23). Moreover, equivalence was also found for HAQ-DI, Pain VAS, and Fatigue VAS whereas only comparability within the limits of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was demonstrated for VAS Patient Global Health. Statistical comparability was demonstrated for SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, PASS, and Anchoring Question (no predefined MCID/equivalence margins available). However, a statistically significant difference between device types was observed for the SLAQ Symptom of -0.56 (95% CI: -1.10 to -0.01). The difference was, however, very small when considering the scale range of 0-24; thus, it was not judged to be of clinical relevance. Preference for the web app was very high (91.2%). CONCLUSION: For the first time ever, equivalence and comparability between two electronic device types for various PROMs were demonstrated among patients with SLE. Implementation of the device is expected to improve the management of SLE.

Pain and Fatigue in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis Treated With Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Multinational Real-World Findings.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experience symptoms and comorbidities that impact their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ability to work. This real-world, global survey was conducted among AS patients receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) to evaluate both the frequency and severity of persistent symptoms, and the impact of pain and fatigue on HRQoL, employment status, and work activity. METHODS: Patients with AS and their treating physicians from 13 countries across 5 continents completed questionnaires capturing demographics, patient symptoms, current disease status, HRQoL, current therapy, employment status, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. RESULTS: Seven hundred five patients who had been receiving a TNFi for 3 months or more and completed both Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) pain and fatigue domains were included in the analysis; of these, 37.6% reported high BASDAI pain scores and 41.3% high BASDAI fatigue scores. Medical Outcomes Study-Short Form, 36-item version 2 domain, 5-dimensional EuroQoL Questionnaire, and 5-dimensional EuroQoL visual analog scale scores were significantly lower (p < 0.0001), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores significantly higher (p < 0.0001), in patients with high levels of pain or fatigue than low levels. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, levels of pain and fatigue remained high in AS patients receiving TNFi treatment, which were significantly associated with reduced HRQoL and work productivity. Such persistent symptoms in usual care suggest a substantial unmet need in AS pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutic pathways.

Upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in methotrexate-naïve Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a sub-analysis of the Phase 3 SELECT-EARLY study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) in MTX-naïve Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the Phase 3 SELECT-EARLY study. METHODS: Japanese patients were randomized 2:1:1:1 to upadacitinib 7.5, 15, or 30 mg daily or MTX 7.5 mg/week (titrated to ≤15 mg/week). Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients reporting 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) at week 24. Other efficacy outcomes were also assessed at weeks 12 and/or 24. Safety was assessed over 24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 138 Japanese patients enrolled, significantly more patients treated with upadacitinib 7.5 and 15 mg, but not 30 mg, reported ACR20 responses versus MTX at week 12. Significantly smaller changes from baseline in mTSS were observed with upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg, but not 7.5 mg, versus MTX at week 24. Upadacitinib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile; herpes zoster occurred in 3.6%, 7.4%, and 7.1% of patients treated with upadacitinib 7.5, 15, and 30 mg, respectively. CONCLUSION: Similar to the global study population, upadacitinib demonstrated clinical efficacy superior to placebo in the Japanese subpopulation. Among upadacitinib-treated patients, herpes zoster was least common with 7.5 mg.