Incidence of checkpoint inhibitor-associated inflammatory arthritis, immunomodulation and mortality in cancer patients on immunotherapy: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) associated inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) occurs in 4-6% of ICI-treated patients based on one observational study. We identified cases of ICI-IA using administrative claims to study its incidence and characteristics at the population level. METHODS: We used the Medicare 5% sample to identify patients initiating ICIs. Cancer patients were identified by having ≥ 2 ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes from an oncologist for lung cancer, melanoma, or renal/urothelial cancer. ICI-IA was defined as having two Medicare claims ≥ 30 days apart with combinations of ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes that favored specificity. ICI-IA was identified in patients with a musculoskeletal diagnosis after ICI initiation, who had i.) no inflammatory arthritis or inflammatory rheumatic disease before ICI initiation ever, and ii) no musculoskeletal complaint in the one year prior to ICI. We examined DMARD utilization and visits to rheumatology in patients with ICI-IA. Landmark analysis and a time varying Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival was constructed. RESULTS: The incidence of ICI-IA was 7.2 (6.1-8.4) per 100 patient years. Patients with ICI-IA were mean (SD) age 73.5(7.0) years, 48% women, 91% white. Median(IQR) time from ICI initiation to first ICI-IA diagnosis was 124(56, 252) days. Only 24(16%) received care from a rheumatologist, and 24(16%) were prescribed a DMARD (46% by a rheumatologist). The HR for mortality in patients with ICI-IA was 0.86 (95% CI 0.59-1.26, p= 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ICI-IA identified in claims data is similar to that reported in observational studies, however, few patients are treated with a DMARD or see a rheumatologist. There was no difference in overall survival between ICI-treated patients with and without ICI-IA.

Determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis during long-term extension studies up to 9.5 years.

Objectives: To examine determinants of tofacitinib discontinuation due to voluntary (i.e. patient-driven) or involuntary reasons (i.e. protocol mandated) in long-term extension (LTE) studies of patients with RA to inform clinical practice, clinical study execution and data capture. Methods: This post hoc analysis used pooled data from patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) in LTE studies. Outcomes included time to voluntary/involuntary discontinuation (and baseline predictors), including by geographic region. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) were calculated for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs) and discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs. Results: Of 4967 patients, 2463 (49.6%) discontinued [1552/4967 (31.2%) voluntarily, 911/4967 (18.3%) involuntarily] and 55 (1.1%) died over the course of 9.5 years. When involuntary discontinuation was present as a competing risk for voluntary discontinuation, patients who stayed on combination therapy and with higher patient-assessed pain were significantly more likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Older patients, those enrolled in Asia, Europe or Latin America (vs USA or Canada) or with RF+/anti-CCP+ status were significantly less likely to discontinue for voluntary reasons (P < 0.05). Small numeric differences in disease activity were observed between geographic regions in patients who discontinued or completed the studies. EAERs were generally higher for tofacitinib 10 vs 5 mg BID, irrespective of discontinuation reason. Conclusion: The factors associated with voluntary/involuntary discontinuation of tofacitinib suggest that treatment persistence in RA studies is partly predictable, which may be reflected in clinical practice. Applying these results may improve our understanding of attrition and inform future study design/execution. Trial registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT00413699 and NCT00661661.

Association of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Low-Dose Glucocorticoid Use in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Many guidelines recommend limiting glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but 40% of patients remain on glucocorticoids long-term. We evaluated the cardiovascular risk of long-term glucocorticoid use by studying patients on stable disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Using two claims databases, we identified patients with RA on stable DMARD therapy for >180 days. Proportional hazards models with inverse probability weights and clustering to account multiple observations were used to estimate the effect of glucocorticoid dose on composite cardiovascular outcomes (stroke or myocardial infarction). RESULTS: There were 135,583 patients in Medicare and 39,272 in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart (CDM) database. Medicare and CDM patients had an incidence of 1.3 and 0.8 composite cardiovascular outcomes per 100 person-years, respectively. In the older, comorbid Medicare cohort, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increase in composite cardiovascular outcomes in adjusted models with predicted 1-year incidence of 1.4% (95% CI 1.2-1.6) for ≤5mg, 1.6% (1.4-1.9) for >5-10mg, and 1.8% (1.2-2.5) for >10mg versus 1.1% (95% CI 1.1-1.2) among patients using no glucocorticoids. There was no significant association among the CDM cohort. However, in the subgroup of younger patients with RA and higher cardiovascular risk, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increase in composite cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among older, more comorbid and younger, higher cardiovascular risk patients with RA on stable DMARD therapy, glucocorticoids were associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, even at doses ≤5mg/d. By contrast, no association was noted among younger, healthier patients with RA.

Identification of Gaps in Quality of Care and Good Practice Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Insights From a Literature Review and Qualitative Study of Nine Centers in North America.

OBJECTIVE: Quality of care (QoC) delivery in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to suffer from various challenges (eg, delay in diagnosis and referral) that can lead to poor patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions that address these challenges in RA care in North America. METHODS: The study was conducted in three steps: (1) literature review of existing publications and guidelines (April 2005 to April 2021) on QoC in RA; (2) in-person visits to >50 individual specialists and health care professionals across nine rheumatology centers in the United States and Canada to identify challenges in RA care and any corresponding good practice interventions; and (3) collation and organization of findings of the two previous methods by commonalities to identify key good practice interventions, followed by further review by RA experts to ensure key challenges and gaps in RA care were captured. RESULTS: Several challenges and eight good practice interventions were identified in RA care. The interventions were prioritized based on the perceived positive impact on the challenges in care and ease of implementation. High-priority interventions included the use of technology to improve care, streamlining specialist treatment, and facilitating comorbidity assessment and care. Other interventions included enabling patient access to optimal medication regimens and improving patient self-management strategies. CONCLUSION: Learnings from the study can be implemented in other rheumatology centers throughout North America to improve RA care. Although the study was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings remain relevant.

Real-World Effectiveness of Pegloticase Associated With Use of Concomitant Immunomodulatory Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to ascertain pegloticase persistence and adverse events associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment in patients with gout. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with gout using the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry from January 2016 through June 2020. The first pegloticase infusion defined the index date. Based on concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment, we identified three exposure groups: (1) immunomodulatory drug initiators (patients initiating an immunomodulatory prescription ±60 days from the index date), (2) prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients (patients receiving their first immunomodulatory drug prescription >60 days before the index date with at least one prescription within ±60 days of the index date), and (3) immunomodulatory nonrecipients (patients receiving pegloticase without concomitant immunomodulatory drugs). We calculated the proportion of patients who achieved serum urate levels ≤6 mg/dL and who had laboratory abnormalities (white blood cell count <3.4 x 109/L, platelet count <135,000, hematocrit level <30%, alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase level ≥1.5 times the upper limit normal value) within 180 days after the index date. Cox regression analyzed time to pegloticase discontinuation, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: We identified 700 pegloticase recipients (91 immunomodulatory drug initiators, 33 prevalent immunomodulatory drug recipients, and 576 nonrecipients), with a median follow-up of 14 months. Immunomodulatory drug recipients were less likely to discontinue pegloticase. The adjusted hazard ratios of pegloticase discontinuation associated with concomitant immunomodulatory drug initiation and prevalent treatment were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.75) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.42-1.16), respectively. Laboratory abnormalities were uncommon (<5%) and were not higher in concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Consistent with clinical trials, results from this large observational registry suggest that concomitant immunomodulatory drug treatment improves pegloticase persistence.

Which Educational Topics and Smartphone App Functions Are Prioritized by US Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases? A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify (1) what types of information US adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) perceive as most important to know about their disease, and (2) what functions they would use in an RMD-specific smartphone app. METHODS: Nominal groups with patients with RMD were conducted using online tools to generate a list of needed educational topics. Based on nominal group results, a survey with final educational items was administered online, along with questions about desired functions of a smartphone app for RMD and wearable use, to patients within a large community rheumatology practice-based research network and the PatientSpot registry. Chi-square tests and multivariate regression models were used to determine differences in priorities between groups of respondents with rheumatic inflammatory conditions (RICs) and osteoarthritis (OA), and possible associations. RESULTS: At least 80% of respondents considered finding a rheumatologist, understanding tests and medications, and quickly recognizing and communicating symptoms to doctors as extremely important educational topics. The highest-ranked topic for both RIC and OA groups was "knowing when the medication is not working." The app functions that most respondents considered useful were viewing laboratory results, recording symptoms to share with their rheumatology provider, and recording symptoms (eg, pain, fatigue) or disease flares for health tracking over time. Approximately one-third of respondents owned and regularly used a wearable activity tracker. CONCLUSION: People with RMD prioritized information about laboratory test results, medications, and disease and symptom monitoring, which can be used to create educational and digital tools that support patients during their disease journey.

Comparative effectiveness of Denosumab vs alendronate among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab significantly increases bone mineral density at key skeletal sites more than oral bisphosphonates, evidence is lacking from head-to-head randomized trials evaluating fracture outcomes. This retrospective cohort study uses administrative claims data from Medicare fee-for service beneficiaries to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of denosumab versus alendronate in reducing fracture risk among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) in the US. Women with PMO ≥ 66 years of age with no prior history of osteoporosis treatment, who initiated denosumab (n = 89 115) or alendronate (n = 389 536) from 2012 to 2018, were followed from treatment initiation until the first of a specific fracture outcome, treatment discontinuation or switch, end of study (December 31, 2019), or other censoring criteria. A doubly robust inverse-probability of treatment and censoring weighted function was used to estimate the risk ratio associated with the use of denosumab compared with alendronate for hip, nonvertebral (NV; includes hip, humerus, pelvis, radius/ulna, other femur), non-hip nonvertebral (NHNV), hospitalized vertebral (HV), and major osteoporotic (MOP; consisting of NV and HV) fractures. Overall, denosumab reduced the risk of MOP by 39%, hip by 36%, NV by 43%, NHNV by 50%, and HV fractures by 30% compared with alendronate. Denosumab reduced the risk of MOP fractures by 9% at year 1, 12% at year 2, 18% at year 3, and 31% at year 5. An increase in the magnitude of fracture risk reduction with increasing duration of exposure was also observed for other NV fracture outcomes. In this cohort of almost half-a-million treatment-naive women with PMO, we observed clinically significant reductions in the risk of MOP, hip, NV, NHNV, and HV fractures for patients on denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk.

Osteoporosis-related fractures can have a significant impact on the health and quality of life of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO), as well as pose a significant burden to society. Although clinical trials have shown that denosumab is more effective at increasing bone mineral density compared to alendronate, there is a lack of evidence evaluating the fracture risk between these two commonly used osteoporosis therapies. In this study using Medicare claims data for almost 500 000 women with PMO with no prior history of osteoporosis medication use, we compared the risk of fracture, an important outcome to patients and health care providers, between denosumab and alendronate. Advanced analytic methods were implemented to ensure the study results were valid and were not unduly influenced by biases common in observational studies. We observed clinically meaningful reductions (from 30% up to 50%) in the risk of hip, nonvertebral, non-hip nonvertebral, hospitalized vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures for patients treated with denosumab compared with alendronate. Patients who remained on denosumab for longer periods of time experienced greater reductions in fracture risk than those who remained on alendronate.

External validation of a multi-biomarker-based score for predicting risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: A multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA)-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score was developed and internally validated in a Medicare cohort to predict 3-year risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or CVD death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It combines the MBDA score, leptin, MMP-3, TNF-R1, age and four clinical variables. We are now externally validating it in a younger RA cohort. METHODS: Claims data from a private aggregator were linked to MBDA test data to create a cohort of RA patients ≥18 years old. A univariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was fit using the MBDA-based CVD risk score as sole predictor of time-to-a-CVD event (hospitalized MI or stroke). Hazard ratio (HR) estimate was determined for all patients and for clinically relevant subgroups. A multivariable Cox model evaluated whether the MBDA-based CVD risk score adds predictive information to clinical data. RESULTS: 49,028 RA patients (340 CVD events) were studied. Mean age was 52.3 years; 18.3% were male. HR for predicting 3-year risk of a CVD event by the MBDA-based CVD risk score in the full cohort was 3.99 (95% CI: 3.51-4.49, p = 5.0×10-95). HR were also significant for subgroups based on age, comorbidities, disease activity, and drug use. In a multivariable model, the MBDA-based CVD risk score added significant information to hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, history of CVD, age, sex and CRP (HR = 2.27, p = 1.7×10-7). CONCLUSION: The MBDA-based CVD risk score has been externally validated in an RA cohort that is younger than and independent of the Medicare cohort that was used for development and internal validation.

Urate-lowering therapy, serum urate, inflammatory biomarkers, and renal function in patients with gout following pegloticase discontinuation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Little is known about long-term clinical outcomes or urate-lowering (ULT) therapy use following pegloticase discontinuation. We examined ULT use, serum urate (SU), inflammatory biomarkers, and renal function following pegloticase discontinuation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of gout patients who discontinued pegloticase using the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry from 1/2016 to 6/2022. We defined discontinuation as a gap ≥ 12 weeks after last infusion. We examined outcomes beginning two weeks after last dose and identified ULT therapy following pegloticase discontinuation. We evaluated changes in lab values (SU, eGFR, CRP and ESR), comparing on- treatment (≤ 15 days of the second pegloticase dose) to post-treatment. RESULTS: Of the 375 gout patients discontinuing pegloticase, median (IQR) laboratory changes following discontinuation were: SU: +2.4 mg/dL (0.0,6.3); eGFR: -1.9 mL/min (- 8.7,3.7); CRP: -0.8 mg/L (-12.8,0.0); and ESR: -4.0 mm/hr (-13.0,0.0). Therapy post-discontinuation included oral ULTs (86.0%), restarting pegloticase (4.5%), and no documentation of ULT (9.5%), excluding patients with multiple same-day prescriptions (n = 17). Oral ULTs following pegloticase were: 62.7% allopurinol, 34.1% febuxostat. The median (IQR) time to starting/restarting ULT was 92.0 days (55.0,173.0). Following ULT prescribing (≥ 30 days), only 51.0% of patients had SU < 6 mg/dL. Patients restarting pegloticase achieved a median SU of 0.9 mg/dL (IQR:0.2,9.7) and 58.3% had an SU < 6 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Pegloticase treats uncontrolled gout in patients with failed response to xanthine oxidase inhibitors, but among patients who discontinue, optimal treatment is unclear. Based on this analysis, only half of those starting another ULT achieved target SU. Close follow-up is needed to optimize outcomes after pegloticase discontinuation.

Prevalence and Factors Associated With Patient-Clinician Discordance Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Advanced Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and identify associated factors for patient-clinician discordance of disease assessment at biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) initiation and over 12 months following initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from a US RA registry. METHODS: Analyses included CorEvitas RA Registry patients who initiated their first biologic or JAKi on or after February 1, 2015, and had 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. Positive discordance was defined as patient global assessment (visual analog scale [VAS-100]) minus physician's global assessment (VAS-100) equal to 30 points or more. Persistent discordance was defined as positive discordance at all three visits. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for positive discordance at initiation and for persistent discordance. RESULTS: Among 2227 first-time biologic/JAKi-initiating patients, 613 had both follow-up visits available and were included in initiation visit analyses, and of these, 163 had positive discordance at initiation and were included in persistent discordance analyses. About 30% of all patients had positive discordance at any visit, and one third of these (10% total) were persistent at all three visits. Multivariable analyses revealed that worse scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index, greater patient-reported pain and fatigue, and greater functional impairment were associated with positive discordance at the time of therapy initiation. Being disabled versus working full-time and being female were associated with higher odds and having Medicare versus no insurance was associated with lower odds of having persistent positive discordance. CONCLUSION: Results suggest positive discordance is common among real-world patients with RA initiating their first biologic or JAKi. The identified risk factors associated with patient-clinician discordance will help clinicians foster a more patient-centric discussion in treatment decisions.

Home-Based Telemedicine in Rheumatology-A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a scoping review of the relevant literature on home-based telehealth in rheumatology to understand its appropriate application in rheumatology practice. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and scientific meeting abstracts to identify articles that specifically addressed telehealth suitability, barriers to telehealth, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected in telehealth settings, and telehealth satisfaction. From the initial search of 4,882 studies, 23 reports were included. In addition, 10 abstracts were also eligible for analysis, resulting in a total of 33 articles: 2 randomized clinical trials, 9 prospective cohort studies, and 22 retrospective studies. RESULTS: We found that triage appointments or predictive models could be helpful in selecting patients for telehealth and that telehealth interventions were appropriate for follow-up of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and inflammatory arthritis, but that conducting new patient visits over telehealth was not ideal. Barriers to telehealth include patient factors (age, technology access) and need for physician/process factors (eg, physical examinations). PROs collected in regular practice can be incorporated into telehealth. Several small, single-center studies suggest that telehealth does not lead to negative outcomes compared with in-person visits, and overall, patients report high patient satisfaction with telehealth. In several scenarios, home-based telehealth was equivalent to in-person visits with regard to patient outcomes and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The widespread potential of telehealth to manage and deliver care for people with rheumatic disease is significant. As such, further research in the form of randomized controlled trials can help contribute to growing evidence that shapes telehealth implementation for patients with rheumatic diseases.

Wearable activity tracker study exploring rheumatoid arthritis patients' disease activity using patient-reported outcome measures, clinical measures, and biometric sensor data (the wear study).

Background: Digital health studies using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), wearables, and clinical data to provide a more comprehensive picture of patient health. Methods: Newly initiated patients on upadacitinib or adalimumab for RA will be recruited from community settings in the Excellence NEtwork in RheumatoloGY (ENRGY) practice-based research network. Over the period of three to six months, three streams of data will be collected (1) linkable physician-derived data; (2) self-reported daily and weekly ePROs through the ArthritisPower registry app; and (3) biometric sensor data passively collected via wearable. These data will be analyzed to evaluate correlations among the three types of data and patient improvement on the newly initiated medication. Conclusions: Results from this study will provide valuable information regarding the relationships between physician data, wearable data, and ePROs in patients newly initiating an RA treatment, and demonstrate the feasibility of digital data capture for Remote Patient Monitoring of patients with rheumatic disease.

Changes in the Workforce Characteristics of Providers Who Care for Adult Patients With Rheumatologic and Musculoskeletal Disease in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the adult rheumatology workforce in the United States, assess change in rheumatology providers over time, and identify variation in rheumatology practice characteristics. METHODS: Using national Medicare claims data from 2006 to 2020, clinically active rheumatology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) were identified. Each calendar year was used for inclusion, exclusion, and analysis, and providers were determined to be entering, exiting, or stable based upon presence or absence in the prior or subsequent years of data. Characteristics (age, gender, practice type, rural, and region) of rheumatologists were determined for 2019 and in mutually exclusive study periods from 2009 to 2011, 2012 to 2015, and 2016 to 2019. The location of rheumatology practice was determined by billing tax identification and mapped. Demographics of physicians exiting or entering the rheumatology workforce were compared separately to those stable by logistic regression. RESULTS: The clinically active adult rheumatology workforce identified in US Medicare in 2019 was 5,667 rheumatologists and 379 APPs. From 2009 to 2020, the number of rheumatologists increased 23% and the number of APPs increased 141%. There was an increase in female rheumatologists over time, rising to 43% in 2019. Women and those employed by a health care system were more likely to exit, and those in a small practice or in the South were less likely to exit. CONCLUSION: The overall number of clinically active rheumatology providers grew more than 20% over the last decade to a high of 6,036 in 2020, although this rate of growth appears to be flattening off in later years.

Work Productivity and General Health Through 2 Years of Guselkumab Treatment in a Phase 3 Randomized Trial of Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the effect of guselkumab on work productivity and nonwork daily activity impairment and general health status through 2 years in patients who were biologic-naïve with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients with PsA were randomized to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); at weeks 0, 4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W); or placebo (through week 24 with crossover to guselkumab Q4W). Work productivity and nonwork daily activity impairment were assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for PsA (WPAI-PsA) and patient-reported general health status using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index and EQ-Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS). Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in WPAI-PsA domains and EQ-5D-5L/EQ-VAS were assessed through week 100. Changes in employment status were utilized to estimate potential indirect savings from improved work productivity. RESULTS: Of 739 randomized patients, 738 had available baseline data for the analyses (Q4W 245; Q8W 248; placebo 245). At week 24, greater improvements in work productivity, nonwork daily activity, and EQ-5D-5L/EQ-VAS were observed in the Q4W and Q8W groups versus the placebo group. At week 100, LS mean reductions in work productivity impairment (- 23.8% to - 28.0%) and nonwork daily activity impairment (- 26.6% to - 29.2%) and improvements in EQ-5D-5L/EQ-VAS (0.14 to 0.15/21.2 to 25.0) were maintained in patients receiving guselkumab. Among patients employed at baseline, 12.1-16.4% were not employed at week 100, and 20.0-25.3% shifted from not employed at baseline to employed at week 100. Potential yearly indirect cost savings (USD) from improved work productivity at week 100 ranged from $16,529 to $19,409. CONCLUSION: Patients with active PsA treated with guselkumab demonstrated reduced impairment in work productivity and nonwork daily activity, together with improvement in general health status and substantial potential cost savings, over a 2-year period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03158285.

Lower body mass and lower adiposity are associated with differential responses to two treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To determine if body mass index (BMI) and adipokine levels identify rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients most likely to benefit from initiation of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) after methotrexate inadequate response. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Treatments (RACAT) trial and the (TEAR) trial. Both studies compared treatment strategies starting with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (triple therapy) versus etanercept plus methotrexate. We compared response rates between TNFi and triple therapy among patients with different BMI. Adipokines were measured at enrolment and associations with treatment response were examined using regression, adjusting for age, sex, BMI and baseline disease activity. RESULTS: In RACAT (n=306), participants who were normal/underweight were more likely to benefit from TNFi versus triple therapy, with greater change in Disease Activity Score in 28 and greater ACR20 response (ACR 20: 64% vs 23%, p=0.001). In contrast, overweight/obese participants had similar response to TNFi versus triple therapy (p-for-interaction=0.001). Similarly, but modest patterns were observed in TEAR (n=601; ACR20: 67% vs 52%, p=0.05). In RACAT, adipokine scores consistent with lower adiposity also predicted greater response to TNFi (ACR20: 58% vs 37%, p=0.01) with better model fit compared with BMI alone. CONCLUSIONS: Lower BMI and evidence of lower adiposity based on adipokine profiles were associated with a superior response to TNFi compared with triple therapy. There was no difference between treatments among overweight/obese participants. The results support TNFi being a particularly important therapeutic among normal/underweight patients, with implications for clinical decisions and trial design.

Treatment of Polymyalgia Rheumatica by Rheumatology Providers: Analysis from the American College of Rheumatology RISE Registry.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the demographics, comorbidities, and treatment patterns in a national cohort of patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who received care from rheumatology providers. METHODS: Patients with PMR were identified in the American College of Rheumatology Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry from 2016 to 2022. Use of glucocorticoids and immunomodulatory antirheumatic medications used as steroid-sparing agents were examined overall and in a subgroup of patients new to rheumatology practices, the majority with presumed new-onset PMR. In these new patients, multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with persistent glucocorticoid and steroid-sparing agent use at 12 to 24 months. RESULTS: A total of 26,102 patients with PMR were identified, of which 16,703 new patients were included in the main analysis. Patients were predominantly female (55.8%) and White (46.7%), with a mean age of 72.0 years. Hypertension (81.2%), congestive heart failure (52.4%), hyperlipidemia (41.3%), and ischemic heart disease (36.0%) were the most prevalent comorbidities. At baseline, 92.3% of patients were on glucocorticoids, and only 13.1% were on a steroid-sparing agent. At 12 to 24 months, most patients remained on glucocorticoids (63.8%). Although there was an increase in use through follow-up, antirheumatic medications were prescribed only to a minority (39.0%) of patients with PMR. CONCLUSION: In this large US-based study of patients with PMR receiving rheumatology care, only a minority of patients were prescribed steroid-sparing agents during the first 24 months of follow-up; most patients remained on glucocorticoids past one year. Further identification of patients who would benefit from steroid-sparing agents and the timing of steroid-sparing agent initiation is needed.

Anti-citrullinated protein antibody profiles predict changes in disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating biologics.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an expanded antigen-specific ACPA profile predicts changes in disease activity in patients with RA initiating biologics. METHODS: The study included participants from a prospective, non-randomized, observational RA cohort. For this sub-study, treatment groups of interest included biologic-naïve initiating anti-TNF, biologic-exposed initiating non-TNF, and biologic-naïve initiating abatacept. ACPAs to 25 citrullinated peptides were measured using banked enrolment serum. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed and associations of resulting principal component (PC) scores (in quartiles) and anti-CCP3 antibody (≤15, 16-250 or >250 U/ml) with EULAR (good/moderate/none) treatment response at 6 months were examined using adjusted ordinal regression models. RESULTS: Participants (n = 1092) had a mean age of 57 (13) years and 79% were women. At 6 months, 68.5% achieved a moderate/good EULAR response. There were three PCs that cumulatively explained 70% of variation in ACPA values. In models including the three components and anti-CCP3 antibody category, only PC1 and PC2 were associated with treatment response. The highest quartile for PC1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.53) and for PC2 (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.46) were associated with treatment response after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence of interaction between PCs and treatment group in EULAR responses (P-value for interaction >0.1). CONCLUSION: An expanded ACPA profile appears to be more strongly associated with biologic treatment response in RA than commercially available anti-CCP3 antibody levels. However, further enhancements to PCA will be needed to effectively prioritize between different biologics available for the treatment of RA.

Classifying Multimorbidity Using Drug Concepts via the Rx-Risk Comorbidity Index: Methods and Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to update a method to identify comorbid conditions using only medication information in circumstances in which diagnosis codes may be undercaptured, such as in single-specialty electronic health records (EHRs), and to compare the distribution of comorbidities across Rx-Risk versus other traditional comorbidity indices. METHODS: Using First Databank, RxNorm, and its web-based clients, RxNav and RxClass, we mapped Drug Concept Unique Identifiers (RxCUIs), National Drug Codes (NDCs), and Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) codes to Rx-Risk, a medication-focused comorbidity index. In established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) cohorts within the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry, we then compared Rx-Risk with other comorbidity indices, including the Charlson Comorbidity Index, Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (RDCI), and Elixhauser. RESULTS: We identified 965 unique ingredient RxCUIs representing the 46 Rx-Risk comorbidity categories. After excluding dosage form and ingredient related RxCUIs, 80,911 unique associated RxCUIs were mapped to the index. Additionally, 187,024 unique NDCs and 354 ATC codes were obtained and mapped to the index categories. When compared to traditional comorbidity indices in the RA cohort, the median score for Rx-Risk (median 6.00 [25th percentile 2, 75th percentile 9]) was much greater than for Charlson (median 0 [25th percentile 0, 75th percentile 0]), RDCI (median 0 [25th percentile 0, 75th percentile 0]), and Elixhauser (median 1 [25th percentile 1, 75th percentile 1]). Analyses of the OA cohort yielded similar results. For patients with a Charlson score of 0 (85% of total), both the RDCI and Elixhauser were close to 1, but the Rx-Risk score ranged from 0 to 16 or more. CONCLUSION: The misclassification and under-ascertainment of comorbidities in single-specialty EHRs can largely be overcome by using a medication-focused comorbidity index.

Filgotinib Demonstrates Efficacy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Independent of Smoking Status: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials and Claims-Based Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess cigarette smoking's effects on efficacy of the preferential Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor filgotinib and drug persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Efficacy in non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers from phase 3 filgotinib trials was analyzed, including patients with inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (MTX) or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or who were MTX-naïve. Proportions achieving Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) ≤ 3.2 were compared using logistic regression. Retrospective claims-based switching data were reviewed. RESULTS: Week 12 (W12) DAS28(CRP) ≤ 3.2 was achieved by 50, 61, and 62% of MTX-IR non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers taking filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) + MTX vs. 23, 16, and 32% taking placebo + MTX (p < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.001) and 50, 34, and 33% taking adalimumab + MTX (p = 0.97, 0.013, and 0.006 vs. FIL200 + MTX). W12 DAS28(CRP) ≤ 3.2 was achieved by 46, 48, and 32% of bDMARD-IR non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers taking FIL200 + conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) vs. 16, 23, and 5% taking placebo + csDMARD (p < 0.001, 0.077, and 0.051); 57, 58, and 59% of respective MTX-naïve smoking groups achieved W12 DAS28(CRP) ≤ 3.2 with FIL200 + MTX vs. 28, 37, and 18% with MTX (p < 0.001, 0.026, and < 0.001). Claims data showed former/current smokers were likelier than non-smokers to switch from adalimumab to other biologics or JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Greater proportions of MTX-IR current/former smokers responded to FIL200 + MTX vs. adalimumab + MTX. In non-smoking MTX-IR, bDMARD-IR, and MTX-naïve patients with RA, FIL200 + MTX demonstrated increased response vs. controls. Current/former smokers were likelier to discontinue adalimumab vs. non-smokers in real-world clinical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728.