Defining Pain That Does Not Interfere With Activities Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: 1) characterize the distribution of noninterfering pain (defined as the pain intensity level at which individuals can function without interference) across different aspects of life among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 2) identify clinical characteristics associated with differing levels of noninterfering pain. METHODS: Patients with RA in FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases completed 8 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference item bank that asked about interference with activities. If subjects reported pain interference, they were asked, "At what level would pain no longer interfere with this activity?" on a scale of 0 to 10. Subjects were also asked, "At what level of pain would you be able to do everything you want to do?" Multiple linear regression analyses examined associations between clinical characteristics and noninterfering pain. RESULTS: A total of 3,949 patients with RA completed the questionnaires. Pain interference was most common for daily activities and least common for ability to concentrate. The mean ± SD level at which pain no longer interfered with activities ranged from 2.7 ± 2.1 for ability to fall/stay asleep to 3.1 ± 2.0 for social activities. Overall, the mean ± SD threshold for noninterfering pain was 2.8 ± 1.9. The mean ± SD level of pain at which patients could do everything they wanted to do was 2.3 ± 1.9. More severe pain intensity was associated with higher noninterfering pain. CONCLUSION: The mean pain level that did not interfere with activities was 3. High pain intensity was associated with high self-reported noninterfering pain.

Patient Perceptions of Unmet Medical Need in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower®, an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80. RESULTS: Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0-10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Health Care Effect of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Use on Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended as the standard of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) due to their ability to reduce pain and disability; however, DMARD use is low in some subgroups of the RA population. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with DMARD use in the overall cohort of patients with RA and newly diagnosed RA patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used claims from a large national health plan. Use of DMARDs was measured according to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) as the proportion of patients with RA receiving DMARDs. Following HEDIS measure technical specifications, we identified patients aged 18-89 years with continuous enrollment during 2014 (measurement year) with ≥ 2 claims for RA outpatient visits and/or discharges on different dates between January and November 2014. Additionally, we identified a subset of patients newly diagnosed with RA in 2014 based on absence of any claims for RA or DMARDs in 2013. Descriptive analyses and bivariate associations were used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with RA with or without DMARD use in 2014. Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared in 2014 for patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans during both 2014 and 2015. Regression models were used to evaluate patient and provider characteristics associated with DMARD use in 2014 and the effect on HCRU and costs. RESULTS: Among the 33,880 patients identified with RA in 2014, most patients received a DMARD (75.2%); 29.4% of patients newly diagnosed with RA had been treated with DMARDs in 2014. Patients with DMARD use, on average, were younger (aged 67 years ± 10.7 vs. 69 years ± 10.7) and healthier (Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index [DCCI] 2.4 ± 1.9 vs. 2.6 ± 2.1) and included a greater proportion of women (75.9% vs. 71.0%) than those with no DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001) was associated with 14.5% fewer hospitalizations and 18.0% fewer emergency department visits. Although total costs increased by 15.0% with use of DMARDs, when the cost of DMARDs was excluded, the total cost decreased by 13.7% (P < 0.0001). Female gender (32.2%), higher claims-based index for RA severity score (47.0%), higher RxRisk-V score (26.7%), visit to a rheumatologist (34.3%), and use of glucocorticoids (17.7%) increased the odds of DMARD use (P < 0.0001). Use of certain classes of medication, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (12.3%), opioids (19.5%), antidepressants (20.0%), muscle relaxants (12.5%), and anticonvulsants (15.5%), were associated with lower use of DMARDs (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with and without DMARD use, which can potentially inform treatment decisions regarding DMARD use as deemed necessary by the provider. Future research should investigate the reasons for lack of treatment. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by funding from Eli Lilly to Humana as a collaborative research project involving employees of both companies. Boytsov, Saverno, Zhang, and Gaich are employees of Eli Lilly. Nair, Bhattacharya, Abbott, and Dixon are employees of Humana, which received funding from Eli Lilly to complete this research.

Achieving Pain Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Baricitinib or Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate: Results from the RA-BEAM Trial.

The purpose of the study was to assess the proportion of patients who achieve pain relief thresholds, the time needed to reach the thresholds, and the relationship between pain and inflammation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate in RA-BEAM (NCT0170358). A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted, comparing baricitinib (N = 487), adalimumab (N = 330), and placebo (N = 488) plus methotrexate. Pain was evaluated by patient's assessment on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The following were assessed through a 24-week placebo-controlled period: the proportion of patients who achieved ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief, the time to achieve these pain relief thresholds, remaining pain (VAS ≤ 10 mm, ≤20 mm, or ≤40 mm), and the relationship between inflammation markers and pain relief. Baricitinib-treated patients were more likely (p < 0.05) to achieve ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief than placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients, as early as Week 1 vs. placebo and at Week 4 vs. adalimumab. A greater proportion of baricitinib-treated patients achieved ≤20 mm or ≤40 mm remaining pain vs. placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients. Baricitinib-treated patients tended to demonstrate consistent pain relief independent of levels of inflammation control. In RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib provided greater and more rapid pain relief than adalimumab and placebo. Analyses suggest the relationship between inflammation and pain may be different for baricitinib and adalimumab treatments.

Relative Impact of Pain and Fatigue on Work Productivity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the RA-BEAM Baricitinib Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To explore the relationship of pain and fatigue with daily activity and work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from the baricitinib clinical trial, RA-BEAM. METHODS: In RA-BEAM, a double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomized 3:3:2 to placebo (n = 488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n = 330) with background methotrexate. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured fatigue and the pain visual analog scale (0-100 mm) assessed pain. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA measured daily activity and work productivity. At weeks 12 and 24, pain was assessed using pain reduction (< 30%, 30% to < 50%, ≥ 50%) and overall pain score; clinically relevant FACIT-F changes were assessed by values < 3.56 and ≥ 3.56 and the FACIT-F normative value score (< 40.1, ≥ 40.1). Pairwise comparisons between pain/fatigue reduction groups were assessed using ANCOVA with pooled data on daily activity and work productivity. A mediator analysis with pain, fatigue, and disease activity measured their contribution to daily activity and work productivity. Data were pooled from all patients for most analyses, and baricitinib-treated patients were assessed as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Reductions in pain (≥ 50%) and fatigue (≥ 3.56) had significant (p ≤ 0.001) effects on daily activity and work productivity improvement at weeks 12 and 24. Reductions in pain, fatigue, and disease activity accounted for most of the improvements in daily activity and work productivity. At the lowest levels of remaining pain (≤ 10 mm) at weeks 12 and 24, however, fatigue did not appear to impact work productivity. Similar trends were observed with baricitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in pain and fatigue were associated with improved daily activity and work productivity for all RA patients and for baricitinib-treated patients in RA-BEAM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01710358. FUNDING: Incyte Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.

Correction to: Use of daily electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) diaries in randomized controlled trials for rheumatoid arthritis: rationale and implementation.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us of an error in language used in the text.

Clinical outcomes in patients switched from adalimumab to baricitinib due to non-response and/or study design: phase III data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who changed treatment from adalimumab to baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, during a phase III programme. METHODS: In phase III RA-BEAM, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo, baricitinib 4 mg once daily, or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly. At week 16 or subsequent visits, non-responders were rescued to open-label baricitinib 4 mg. At week 52, patients could enter a long-term extension (LTE) and continue on baricitinib or switch from adalimumab to baricitinib 4 mg with no adalimumab washout period. Percentage of patients achieving low disease activity and remission were assessed, along with physical function, patient's assessment of pain, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-five (7%) baricitinib-treated and 40 (12%) adalimumab-treated patients were rescued to baricitinib in RA-BEAM; 78% (381/487) of baricitinib-treated and 72% (238/330) of adalimumab-treated patients who were not rescued in RA-BEAM, entered the LTE and continued/were switched to baricitinib. In both baricitinib-rescued and adalimumab-rescued patients, there were significant improvements in all measures up to 12 weeks after rescue compared with the time of rescue. Patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib showed improvements in disease control through 12 weeks in the LTE. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and infections, including serious events, were similar for patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib and those who continued on baricitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from adalimumab to baricitinib (without adalimumab washout) was associated with improvements in disease control, physical function and pain during the initial 12 weeks postswitch, without an increase in TEAEs, serious adverse events or infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01710358, NCT01885078.

Use of daily electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) diaries in randomized controlled trials for rheumatoid arthritis: rationale and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with significantly diminished health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered important in RA; however, some symptoms such as morning joint stiffness (MJS) and fatigue that are considered important by patients are not captured by the American College of Rheumatology "core set" measures for RA trials. The US Food and Drug Administration has endorsed electronic capture of clinical trial data including PROs, and electronic PRO (ePRO) systems may lead to more accurate and complete data capture, improved compliance, and patient acceptance compared with paper-based methods. Our objective was to assess the implementation of ePRO measures of Duration and Severity of MJS, Severity of Worst Tiredness, and Severity of Worst Joint Pain in baricitinib RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: A daily electronic diary (handheld device; Invivodata®, Inc.) was utilized to capture PRO data in the RCTs. Three "reporting window" options were incorporated to accommodate differences in patients' routine daily schedules, and alarms were programmed for each reporting window. Duration of MJS was recorded in "hours and minutes," and Severity of MJS, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain were captured on a 0 to 10 rating scale, with a higher score indicating more severe symptoms. The patients and site staff were trained to use the daily electronic diary. RESULTS: Patients with moderately to severely active RA used the daily electronic diary in the RA-BEAM study (N = 1305) and RA-BUILD study (N = 684). The average compliance, calculated as total days completed by patients compared with total days expected to complete the diary, through Week 12 was high (RA-BEAM 94% patients; RA-BUILD 93% patients), potentially attributable to appropriate training, clarity of instructions, simple user interface, and electronic device design. Identified process challenges included non-timely issuance of the device, low battery, inadequate training of patients before data collection, inappropriate diary set-up, and first response entry 1 day after the baseline visit. CONCLUSIONS: High compliance rates support the use of the daily electronic PRO diary in large RCTs. Despite the anticipated issues, the daily electronic diary is expected to reduce recall bias and improve the quality of PRO data collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RA-BEAM ( NCT01710358 ) and RA-BUILD ( NCT01721057 ).

Estimating the response and economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Taiwan using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in Taiwan utilizing the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database (NHIRD) have estimated the direct healthcare costs of RA patients, but they have not focused on patients on bDMARDs, or considered patients' response to therapy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of inadequate response for patients newly treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) as well as their costs and resource use. METHODS: Data were from the catastrophic illness file within the NHIRD from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2013. Patients with RA, which was categorized by the presence of a catastrophic illness card, that were previously bDMARD-naïve, were included in this study if they initiated their first bDMARD during the index period. The index period included all of 2010, a pre-index period consisting of the index date- 365 days, and a follow-up period including the index date to 365 days post-index, were also included. Previously biologically-naïve patients were indexed into the study on the date of their first claim for a bDMARD. A validated algorithm was used to examine the rate of inadequate response (IR) in the biologically-naïve cohort of patients. Inadequate responders met one or more of the following criteria during their year of follow-up: low adherence (proportion of days covered <0.80); switched to or added a second bDMARD; added a new conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD); received ≥1 glucocorticoid injection; or increased oral glucocorticoid dosing. All-cause mean annual direct costs and resource use were measured in the year of follow-up. Costs were converted from NT$ to USD using 1 NT$ = 0.033 USD. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients with RA initiated their first bDMARD (54% etanercept and 46% adalimumab) in 2010. After one year of follow-up, 32% (n = 258) were classified as stable, 66% (n = 540) had an IR, and 2% (n = 20) were lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period mean annual total direct costs were $16,136 for stable patients compared to $14,154 for patients with IR. Mean annual non-medication direct costs were $937 for stable patients and $1,574 for patients with IR. Mean annual hospitalizations were higher for patients with IR (0.46) compared to stable patients (0.10) during the one year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients that were previously naïve to bDMARDs had an IR to their first bDMARD during the year of follow-up. Patients with an IR had numerically increased all-cause resource utilization and non-medication costs during the follow-up period compared to patients with stable disease. This level of IR suggests an unmet need in the RA treatment paradigm.

Examination of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Association with TNF-Inhibitor Treatment Response: Results from a US Observational Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy is challenging when the patient and physician prioritize different goals. This study aimed to "translate" improvements in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) to concepts that resonate with patients (such as pain, fatigue, morning stiffness) by examining the association between changes in disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating their first biologic treatment. METHODS: Patients in the Corrona registry with moderate or high disease activity (M/HDA) (defined by a CDAI score > 10), prior use of at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), 12-month follow-up, and initiating their first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) between 1 January 2006 through 1 November 2015 were identified. Patients were stratified on the basis of CDAI during follow-up, and changes in PROs were compared with a test of trend using CDAI-defined groups. RESULTS: Of 1570 patients, 37% achieved sustained remission or low disease activity (remission/LDA), 15% had improving remission/LDA, 12% had worsening M/HDA, and 35% were in sustained M/HDA during 12-month follow-up. Those in sustained remission/LDA had greater magnitude of improvement in physical functioning, pain, fatigue, morning stiffness, patient's global assessment, and quality of life compared with patients in sustained M/HDA (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in disease activity was associated with improvements in PROs, with the greatest improvements seen in those who achieved sustained remission/LDA. These results reinforce the benefits of a treat-to-target approach to RA care and may improve dialogue between patients and providers, support shared decision-making, and reduce "clinical inertia." FUNDING: Corrona, LLC.

Psychometric properties of morning joint stiffness duration and severity measures in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the measurement properties of two single-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that assessed the length of time (in minutes) and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS) experienced each day. METHODS: Data from two Phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled (and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies assessing the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients among stable patients (coefficient range for both studies: 0.88 to 0.93). In support of construct validity, moderate correlations were evidenced between Duration of MJS and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, whereas moderate-to-strong correlations were evidenced between these same patient- and clinician-reported assessments and Severity of MJS. Statistically significant differences between the median and mean values of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS for differing categories of RA disease severity supported known-groups validity. Finally, large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients defined as responders versus non-responders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 criteria supported the responsiveness of both PROs. CONCLUSION: Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs demonstrated reliability, validity, and responsiveness in adults with moderately to severely active RA, supporting the measurement of these key symptoms in clinical trials.

Psychometric properties of the single-item measure, severity of worst tiredness, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to treatment change of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data from two Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled (RA-BUILD; and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies of the efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active RA were used. The psychometric properties of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, were assessed, including test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness, using other patient- and clinician-reported outcomes frequently assessed in RA patients. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the Severity of Worst Tiredness was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients (0.89 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.91). Moderate-to-large correlations were observed between this patient-reported outcome (PRO) and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, supporting construct validity of the measure (│r│ ≥ 0.41). The instrument also displayed known-groups validity through statistically significant differences between mean values of the Severity of Worst Tiredness defined using other indicators of RA severity. Finally, responsiveness was supported by large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients comparing responders and nonresponders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria. CONCLUSION: The Severity of Worst Tiredness PRO demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, and responsiveness in clinical trials of adults with moderately to severely active RA and is fit for purpose in this patient population.

Patient-reported outcomes of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no or limited prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs. METHODS: Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.

Patient-reported outcomes from a phase III study of baricitinib in patients with conventional synthetic DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: In this phase III study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo (N=228), baricitinib 2 mg once daily (QD, N=229) or baricitinib 4 mg QD (N=227). PROs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, measures from patient electronic daily diaries (duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Tiredness, Worst Joint Pain), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), SF-36, EuroQol 5-D index scores and visual analogue scales (VAS) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA. The primary time point for the study was week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures and analysis of covariance for continuous variables. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were observed for both baricitinib groups versus placebo in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, daily diary measures, EuroQoL index scores and SF-36 physical component score at week 12 and for those measures when assessed at week 24. Baricitinib 2 mg and baricitinib 4 mg were statistically significantly improved versus placebo for the EuroQoL VAS and FACIT-F, respectively, at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib 2 or 4 mg provided significant improvement versus placebo in PROs across different domains of RA, including physical function, MJS, fatigue, pain and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721057; Results.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON).

OBJECTIVES: To assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables. RESULTS: 527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721044; Results.

Increased healthcare resource utilization in higher disease activity levels in initiators of TNF inhibitors among US rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: Determine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in biologic-naïve initiators of TNF inhibitors (TNFis) associated with their disease activity from a national cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: RA patients were identified at their first TNFi initiation (index date) in the Corrona registry. Patients with age of RA onset <18, comorbid psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia, or osteoarthritis were excluded. Patients were categorized into disease activity (DA) strata by the lowest level of DA (and sustaining low levels for at least two visits) using the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) across all visits in Corrona while on a TNFi during 1 year after initiation. Rates of all-cause and RA-related hospitalizations, rheumatologist visits, and joint surgeries while on TNFi therapy were reported and compared across DA levels along with the incidence rate ratio (IRR) adjusted for age, gender, and RA duration using Poisson mixed models. RESULTS: Of 1931 RA patients: 15% achieved sustained remission, 22% remission, 14% sustained low DA, 23% low DA and 27% moderate/high DA (M/HDA). Those in M/HDA had statistically higher rates of hospitalizations (37.3 per 100 patient years (py), 95% CI: 31.6-43.7 and joint surgeries (20.8 per 100 py, 95% CI: 16.6-25.8) compared to the sustained remission cohort, resulting in respective IRRs of 2.3 (p < 0.001) and 1.7 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Many biologic naïve RA patients initiating TNFi failed to achieve sustained remission during a 1 year period while remaining on TNFi therapy. Patients in higher DA levels had higher HCRU rates vs. patients in sustained remission, suggesting that achieving treat-to-target goals would reduce health care expenses.

Comparative effects of raloxifene and alendronate on fracture outcomes in postmenopausal women with low bone mass.

UNLABELLED: The double-blind, randomized raloxifene alendronate comparison trial was the first study designed to compare two osteoporosis therapies head-to-head for fracture risk reduction. The original protocol planned to treat 3000 postmenopausal women with alendronate 10 mg/day (ALN) or raloxifene 60 mg/day (RLX) for 5 years, and to recruit women (50-80 years old) with a femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) T-score between -2.5 and -4.0, inclusive, no prevalent vertebral fractures, and no prior bone-active agent use. The trial was stopped early, due to difficulty in finding treatment-naïve women to meet enrollment goals within the planned timeline, resulting in insufficient power to show non-inferiority between therapies in the primary endpoint (number of women with >or=1 new osteoporotic vertebral or nonvertebral fracture). Except for vertebral fractures, fracture analyses were based upon 1412 of the 1423 women randomized (mean age of 66 years). After 312+/-254 days (mean+/-SD), 22 women in the ALN group and 20 in the RLX group had new vertebral or nonvertebral fractures. Four women in the ALN group and none in the RLX group had moderate/severe vertebral fractures, a pre-specified endpoint (P=0.04). Lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip BMD were increased from baseline at 2 years in each group (P<0.001), with greater increases in the ALN group (each P<0.05). Similar numbers of women in each group had >or=1 adverse event and discontinued due to an adverse event. The only adverse events with an incidence that differed between groups were colonoscopy, diarrhea, and nausea; each was more common with ALN treatment (each P<0.05). One woman in each group had a venous thromboembolic event. One case of breast cancer occurred in each group. In summary, as this trial was terminated early, there was insufficient power to compare the fracture risks between alendronate and raloxifene. Safety profiles were as expected from clinical trial and post-marketing reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00035971.