Upadacitinib Achieves Clinical and Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn's Disease Regardless of Prior Biologic Exposure.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, achieved significantly higher rates of clinical remission and endoscopic response vs placebo during induction (U-EXCEL [NCT03345849], U-EXCEED [NCT03345836]) and maintenance (U-ENDURE [NCT03345823]) treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. Prior biologic failure is often associated with reduced responses to subsequent therapies. This post hoc analysis assessed upadacitinib efficacy by prior biologic failure status. METHODS: Patients were randomized to placebo or upadacitinib 45 mg (UPA45) for 12 weeks (induction). UPA45 clinical responders were enrolled in U-ENDURE and rerandomized to placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg, or upadacitinib 30 mg (UPA30) for 52 weeks. Assessments were by prior biologic failure. RESULTS: Of 1021 patients, 733 (71.8%) had prior biologic failure. Across outcomes and subgroups, upadacitinib-treated patients achieved higher rates vs placebo. During induction, upadacitinib had higher rates vs placebo for clinical remission based on stool frequency/abdominal pain score (without failure: 54.0% vs 28.3%; with failure: 42.2% vs 14.1%) and endoscopic response (without failure: 52.0% vs 16.2%; with failure: 35.7% vs 5.3%). In maintenance, the greatest treatment effect (upadacitinib vs placebo) was among patients with prior biologic failure treated with UPA30 (clinical remission without failure: 58.5% vs 32.7%; with failure: 42.5% vs 8.7%; endoscopic response without failure: 43.9% vs 17.9%; with failure: 38.9% vs 4.0%). Patients without vs with prior biologic failure had fewer adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib led to higher absolutes rates of clinical and endoscopic outcomes in patients without vs with prior biologic failure. Patients treated with upadacitinib achieved greater rates of clinical and endoscopic improvements vs placebo, regardless of prior biologic exposure. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03345849, NCT03345836, NCT03345823.

Effects of Apremilast, an Oral Inhibitor of Phosphodiesterase 4, in a Randomized Trial of Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: New oral therapeutic agents are needed for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are unresponsive or intolerant to conventional therapy. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, phase 2 trial of adults with active UC for 3 months or more who were naïve to biologic therapy or had been failed by, could not tolerate, or had contraindications to conventional therapies. The study was performed at 61 sites in 14 countries (screening from January 2015 through May 2017). Patients were randomly assigned to groups given apremilast 30 mg (n = 57), apremilast 40 mg (n = 55), or placebo (n = 58) twice daily for 12 weeks; patients were then randomly assigned to groups that received apremilast, 30 or 40 mg twice daily, for an additional 40 weeks. Endoscopies were performed and biopsies were collected during the screening phase, at week 12, and at week 52. Blood and fecal samples were also collected and analyzed throughout the study. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at week 12, defined as a total Mayo score of 2 or less, with no individual subscore above 1. RESULTS: Clinical remission was achieved at week 12 by 31.6% of patients in the 30 mg apremilast group and 12.1% of patients in the placebo group (P = .01). However, only 21.8% of patients in the 40 mg apremilast group achieved clinical remission at week 12 (P = .27 compared with placebo). Differences in clinical remission between the 30 mg and 40 mg apremilast groups were associated with differences in endoscopic improvement. Both apremilast groups had similar improvements from baseline in Mayo score components (stool frequency score, rectal bleeding score, physician's global assessment). The 30 mg and 40 mg apremilast groups had greater median percent reductions in C-reactive protein (measured by a high-sensitivity blood test) and fecal calprotectin through week 12 than the placebo group. At week 52, clinical remission was achieved by 40.4% of patients initially assigned to the apremilast 30 mg group and 32.7% of patients initially assigned to the apremilast 40 mg group. The most frequent apremilast-associated adverse events were headache and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint of clinical remission was not met in this phase 2 trial, a greater proportion of patients with active UC who received apremilast (30 mg or 40 mg) had improvements in clinical and endoscopic features, and markers of inflammation, at 12 weeks. Clinical remission was maintained to week 52 in up to 40% of patients who continued apremilast until that time point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02289417.

Indirect comparison of vedolizumab and adalimumab for biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis.

AIM: Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of vedolizumab with adalimumab in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Vedolizumab is a gut-selective medication for moderate to severe UC. Since no comparative trials are available for direct comparison of vedolizumab vs adalimumab in UC, a systematic review of literature databases was conducted to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the two drugs in patients with moderate to severe UC after failure of conventional treatment. Studies were screened for eligibility by two reviewers based on predefined inclusion criteria. Bucher's adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare vedolizumab and adalimumab indirectly through placebo as common comparator. RESULTS: One vedolizumab study (GEMINI 1) and three adalimumab studies (ULTRA 1, ULTRA 2 and M10-447) met the eligibility criteria. Baseline characteristics of the included populations were similar in biologic-naïve UC patients across study arms. Although no statistically significant differences between treatments were found for induction efficacy endpoints, there was a trend toward a benefit of vedolizumab over adalimumab. There were also no significant differences between treatments for any maintenance efficacy endpoints, with no clear trend favoring either agent. Vedolizumab exhibited statistically superior maintenance safety compared with adalimumab, with significant reductions in risks of adverse events (relative risk 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.57-0.80]; p < .0001), serious adverse events (0.20 [0.09-0.42]; p < .0001) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (0.14 [0.05-0.43]; p = .0006). CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that vedolizumab has comparable efficacy to adalimumab with improved safety in biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe UC.

Efficacy and tolerability of abatacept treatment: results of 12 months observation.

AIM: This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving abatacept (ABA) therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (n=91) with high RA activity (DAS28 = 5.1 ± 1.0) and an inadequate response on synthetic DMARDs (mainly methotrexate, 70.3%) and biologics (mainly TNF-α inhibitors, 93%) were included in the study. The majority of patients were middle-aged (49 ± 13.5) womens, RF (72.5%) and ACPA (77%) positive, with moderate functional impairment - HAQ = 1.4 (0.9-2). ABA were administered IV, 10 mg/kg according to the standard scheme. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the therapy was carried out according to the EULAR / ACR 2011 criteria using SDAI, CDAI, HAQ and the intention to treat approach. RESULTS: ABA led to a significant (p <0.05) decrease activity of RA. Clinical improvement according to EULAR criteria after 6 months of treatment was registered in 70.9%, after 12 months 63%. Almost a third of patients (28.7%) achieved a good response after 3 months of therapy, 39,2% - after 6 months and 39% - after 12 months. The retention rate of ABA therapy after 6 months was 77%, after 12 months - 60%. There were no significant differences between "bio-naive", 1 Bio and ≥2 Bio groups in achieving EULAR response. A good response was achieved in 38%, 38% and 43%, respectively, but the lowest number of non-responders was registered in ≥2 Bio - 38%, 36% and 43%. ABA significantly improved functional status of patients, after 12 months a marked and moderate improvement in the HAQ was achieved in 39% and 21% of patients, respectively. Adverse events (AE) were registered in 22 patients. The most frequent AE were upper respiratory tract infections - 11 (12%) patients. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was effective in the overall population, and in all subgroups of patients. It has shown significant improvement of clinical and functional status in patients who had an inadequate response to previous therapy. ABA has a good safety profile. AE were registered only in a small number of patients.

Efficacy of Vedolizumab Induction and Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis, Regardless of Prior Exposure to Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The efficacy and safety of vedolizumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody against the integrin α4ß7, were demonstrated in multicenter, phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease. We analyzed data from 1 of these trials to determine the effects of vedolizumab therapy in patients with UC, based on past exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) antagonists. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of data from the GEMINI 1 study, collected from 464 patients who received vedolizumab or placebo but had not received a previous TNF antagonist (naive to TNF antagonists) and 367 patients with an inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to TNF antagonists (failure of TNF antagonists). Predefined outcomes of GEMINI 1 were evaluated in these subpopulations. RESULTS: At Week 6, there were greater absolute differences in efficacy between vedolizumab and placebo in patients naive to TNF antagonists than patients with failure of TNF antagonists, although the risk ratios (RRs) for efficacy were similar for each group. Week 6 rates of response to vedolizumab and placebo were 53.1% and 26.3%, respectively, among patients naive to TNF antagonists (absolute difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.4-40.4; RR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0); these rates were 39.0% and 20.6%, respectively, in patients with failure of TNF antagonists (absolute difference, 18.1%; 95% CI, 2.8-33.5; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.2). During maintenance therapy, the absolute differences were similar but the RR for efficacy was higher for patients with failure of TNF antagonists than for patients naive to TNF antagonists, for most outcomes. Week 52 rates of remission with vedolizumab and placebo were 46.9% and 19.0%, respectively, in patients naive to TNF antagonists (absolute difference, 28.0%; 95% CI, 14.9-41.1; RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0) and 36.1% and 5.3%, respectively, in patients with failure of TNF antagonists (absolute difference, 29.5%; 95% CI, 12.8-46.1; RR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.7-26.5). No differences in adverse events were observed among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Vedolizumab demonstrated significantly greater efficacy as induction and maintenance therapy for UC than placebo in patients naive to TNF antagonists and patients with TNF antagonist failure. There were numerically greater treatment differences at Week 6 among patients receiving vedolizumab who were naive to TNF antagonists than patients with TNF antagonist failure. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT00783718.

Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars.

Background: Physicians often prescribe original biologic products to patients who have not used them before and are reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already-approved biologics, but healthcare professionals typically hesitate to transition patients from the original products to biosimilars. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence U.S. healthcare professionals' intentions to use biosimilars. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. 510 participants were eligible healthcare professionals (279 physicians and 231 pharmacists). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to identify which factors affect healthcare professionals' intentions. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and the logistic regression model tested the TPB constructs as predictors of intentions toward biosimilars. Results: Among 279 physicians, most were aged 61 and above, with high (n = 142) and low (n = 137) intentions. Male physicians constituted 71% of the population. Attending physicians (66.3%) showed consistent perceptions towards biosimilars, primarily in the private sector (76.3%). Pharmacists (n = 231), a higher percentage of females demonstrated higher intentions compared to males (35.5% vs. 28.1%); the majority were community pharmacists. Associations between years of practice and intentions were significant. Positive correlations existed between beliefs and intentions, except for normative beliefs. Conclusions: This study revealed diverse attitudes among healthcare professionals towards biosimilars in the USA. Pharmacists and physicians, especially those with limited experience, require ongoing education on biosimilar manufacturing pathways. This education supports the appropriate use of biosimilars and helps standardize federal and state legislation.

Drug Survival, Effectiveness and Safety of Secukinumab in Axial Spondyloarthritis up to 4 Years: A Real-Life Single Center Experience.

(1) Objective: The main aims of our study were to explore the drug survival and effectiveness of secukinumab in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). (2) Methods: We underwent a retrospective analysis of consecutive axSpA treated with secukinumab as a first line of biologics or at switch in a biologic-experienced population. Efficacy data, indicating improvement in inflammation parameters (such as C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and disease activity scores (such as Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS-CRP], Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), and patient-reported outcomes (pain), were assessed at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months. The drug survival rate, dropout rate and discontinuation reasons (efficacy versus safety) of secukinumab were assessed in subgroup analysis (axSpA with and without exposure to biologics). (3) Results: In total, 46 patients were exposed to the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab. The drug survival for axSpA patients 59.7% at 12 months and 31.3% at 24 months. There were no statistically significant differences in the median drug survival between biologic-naïve versus biologic-experienced subgroups. (4) Conclusions: Secukinumab has demonstrated effectiveness and safety in treating a cohort of axSpA patients in real-world settings, with a notable retention rate of the drug.

Real-world apremilast use in biologic-naïve psoriatic arthritis patients. Data from Spanish clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Apremilast is approved for treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Real-world evidence on apremilast effectiveness in clinical practice is limited. METHODS: Observational study enrolling adult patients, across 21 Spanish centres, who had initiated apremilast in the prior 6 (±1) months and were biologic naive. Data were collected at routine follow-up visits 6 and 12 months after apremilast initiation. Primary outcome was 6 and 12-month persistence to apremilast. Secondary outcomes included Disease Activity for PsA (DAPSA), joint erosions, enthesitis, dactylitis, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL, measured using the PsA impact of disease [PsAID] questionnaire). RESULTS: We included 59 patients. Most had oligoarticular PsA, moderate disease activity, and high comorbidity burden. Three-quarters were continuing apremilast at 6 months and two-thirds at 12 months; mean (SD) apremilast treatment duration was 9.43 (1.75) months. DAPSA scores showed improved disease activity: one-third of patients in remission or low activity at apremilast initiation versus 62% and 78% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Eleven of 46 patients with radiographic assessments had joint erosions at apremilast initiation and none at month 12. Median (Q1, Q3) number of swollen joints was 4.0 (2.0, 6.0) at apremilast initiation versus 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) at 12 months. Incidence of dactylitis and enthesitis decreased between apremilast initiation (35.6% and 28.8%, respectively) and month 12 (11.6% and 2.4%, respectively). Over two-thirds of patients had a PSAID-9 score <4 (cut-off for patient-acceptable symptom state) at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: In Spanish clinical practice, two-thirds of PsA patients continued apremilast at 12 months, with clinical benefits at the joint level, no radiographic progression of erosions, and a positive impact on patient-reported QoL. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03828045.

Dose Escalation of Biologics in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Outcomes From the ODESSA-UC Study.

Background: Dose escalation of biologics may regain treatment response in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, dose escalation rates and associated outcomes and costs are not well characterized in biologic-naïve patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-α) treatments, such as infliximab or adalimumab or vedolizumab. Methods: ODESSA-UC, a retrospective cohort study investigating dose escalation in patients with UC who had received first-line biologics, used data from IBM MarketScan databases. Adults with UC and ≥1 claim for an index drug (adalimumab, infliximab, or vedolizumab) were eligible. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the adjusted rate of dose escalation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of experiencing adverse outcomes (corticosteroid use, infection, sepsis, or inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization) and incurring index drug costs. Results: A year after the start of maintenance, a lower proportion of patients experienced dose escalation with vedolizumab (22.3%) than adalimumab (43.0%). The dose escalation risk was significantly higher for infliximab (hazard ratio [HR], 1.894; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.486-2.413) and adalimumab (HR, 2.120; 95% CI, 1.680-2.675) than for vedolizumab. The odds of experiencing an adverse outcome after dose escalation were higher for anti-TNF-α treatments than for vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.052; 95% CI, 1.200-3.507). Index drug costs after dose escalation were lowest for vedolizumab. Conclusions: Patients with UC receiving vedolizumab had a lower risk of dose escalation and lower subsequent costs than patients receiving anti-TNF-α treatments. Our study demonstrates the possible clinical and economic implications of dose escalation.

Is There a Best First Line Biological/Small Molecule in IBD: Are We Ready for Sequencing?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, life-long inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment strategy depends on the severity of the disease course. IBD physicians need to be aware of the life-long treatment options available. The goal is not only to achieve clinical remission but to halt or stabilize the chronic inflammation in the intestines to prevent further structural damage. Therefore, the use of early biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe IBD patients. However, in the last decade, use of therapeutic drug monitoring has increased considerably, opening an opportunity for sequencing. This review summarizes the available evidence on biologic and small molecules therapy in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical scenarios, including perianal CD, the elderly, extra intestinal manifestations, and pregnancy.

Tuberculosis in Biologic-naïve Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Risk Factors and Tuberculosis Characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk factors and characteristics of active tuberculosis (TB) in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-control study using the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register, the National Patient Register, and the Tuberculosis Register to identify RA patients with active TB and matched RA controls without TB between 2001-2014. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. TB risk was estimated as adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: After validation of diagnoses, the study included 31 RA patients with TB and 122 matched RA controls. All except 3 cases had reactivation of latent TB. Pulmonary TB was most prevalent (84%). Ever use of methotrexate was not associated with increased TB risk (aOR 0.8, 95% CI 0.3-2.0), whereas ever treatment with leflunomide (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 1.5-24.7), azathioprine (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1-13.8), and prednisolone (PSL; aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.0-6.0) was. There were no significant differences between maximum dose of PSL, treatment duration with PSL before TB, or cumulative dose of PSL the year before TB diagnosis between cases and controls. Obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with an increased TB risk (aOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.5-10.7). CONCLUSION: Several RA-associated factors may contribute to increased TB risk in biologic-naïve patients with RA, making the risk of TB activation difficult to predict in the individual patient. To further decrease TB in patients with RA, the results suggest that screening for latent TB should also be considered in biologic-naïve patients.

Vedolizumab and Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor α Real-World Outcomes in Biologic-Naïve Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: Results from the EVOLVE Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to compare real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab, an α4ß7-integrin inhibitor, and anti-tumour necrosis factor-α [anti-TNFα] agents in biologic-naïve ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn's disease [CD] patients. METHODS: This was a 24-month retrospective medical chart study in adult UC and CD patients treated with vedolizumab or anti-TNFα in Canada, Greece and the USA. Inverse probability weighting was used to account for differences between groups. Primary outcomes were cumulative rates of clinical effectiveness [clinical response, clinical remission, mucosal healing] and incidence rates of serious adverse events [SAEs] and serious infections [SIs]. Secondary outcomes included cumulative rates of treatment persistence [patients who did not discontinue index treatment during follow-up] and dose escalation and incidence rates of disease exacerbations and disease-related surgeries. Adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients [604 UC, 491 CD] were included. By 24 months, rates of clinical effectiveness were similar between groups, but incidence rates of SAEs (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42 [0.28-0.62]) and SIs (HR = 0.40 [0.19-0.85]) were significantly lower in vedolizumab vs anti-TNFα patients. Rates of treatment persistence [p < 0.01] by 24 months were higher in vedolizumab patients with UC. Incidence rates of disease exacerbations were lower in vedolizumab patients with UC (HR = 0.58 [0.45-0.76]). Other outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION: In this real-world setting, first-line biologic therapy in biologic-naïve patients with UC and CD demonstrated that vedolizumab and anti-TNFα treatments were equally effective at controlling disease symptoms, but vedolizumab has a more favourable safety profile.

Response to interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is independent of the number of prior used TNF inhibitors: A systematic review and metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether early response to tocilizumab (TCZ) and sarilumab (SAR) therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is influenced by previous use of biologic agents. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of original studies that analyzed the effectiveness of TCZ or SRL in subgroups of RA patients, including biologic-naïve patients versus those with inadequate response to at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and patients with failure to 1 versus≥2 bDMARDs. RESULTS: The study selection process finally included 17 articles corresponding to 14 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although the existing literature that compared the response in biologic-naïve patients versus those with inadequate response to at least one bDMARD showed conflicting results, meta-analysis of 6 published studies revealed a significantly higher likelihood of remission (RR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.5) and low activity disease (RR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.4) in the biologic-naïve group at week 24. However, differences between groups were not clinically meaningful in all studies and not always maintained after 6 to 12months of treatment. In addition, data from RCT RADIATE and TARGET suggest that the response to IL-6 pathway inhibitors seems to be similar, regardless of the number of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) previously tested. CONCLUSION: Disease activity was more rapidly reduced in the early stages of treatment in biologic-naïve patients. However, near similar efficacy can be expected in patients who experienced a failure of at least one bDMARD (mainly TNFis) beyond the first 6 to 12months of treatment, suggesting that the response occurs independently of the number of prior TNFis.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries.

INTRODUCTION: AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries. METHOD: Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries. RESULTS: In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort. KEY POINTS: • Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Meta-analysis of IL-17 inhibitors in two populations of rheumatoid arthritis patients: biologic-naïve or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor inadequate responders.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interleukin 17 (IL-17) inhibitors in two rheumatoid arthritis (RA) populations: biologic-naïve or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor inadequate responders (TNF-IR). METHOD: A systematic search was performed in major electronic databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20), ACR50, ACR70 responses and adverse events (AEs) of IL-17 inhibitors versus placebo in patients with RA. We divided these patients into two subgroups: biologic-naïve or TNF-IR. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with pertinent 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 2499 patients were included. For biologic-naïve patients, ACR50 and ACR70 responses were significantly better with IL-17 inhibitors than placebo (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.23-2.38, P = 0.001 and RR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.10-6.25, P = 0.03, respectively), but ACR20 responses for IL-17 inhibitors were not statistically superior to placebo (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.94-1.91, P = 0.11). For TNF-IR, IL-17 inhibitors were effective in achieving ACR20 (RR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.40-2.00, P < 0.00001), ACR50 (RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.43-2.63, P < 0.0001), and ACR70 (RR = 2.11, 95% CI 1.26-3.55, P = 0.005) compared to placebo. In the safety analysis, IL-17 inhibitors did not show increased risk of any AEs by comparing to placebo in both biologic-naïve patients and TNF-IR. CONCLUSION: IL-17 inhibitors were effective in the treatment of RA without increased risk of AEs, whether for biologic-naïve patients or TNF-IR. Key Points • In this meta-analysis comparing IL-17 inhibitors with placebo in 2499 rheumatoid arthritis patients, IL-17 inhibitors improved ACR50 and ACR70, but not ACR20, responses in biologic-naïve patients. • IL-17 inhibitors improved ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor inadequate responders.

A Threshold of Meaning for Work Disability Improvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Specific Health Problem Questionnaire (WPAI:SHP) is used to assess the impact of an intervention on work productivity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Unfortunately, studies reporting changes or improvements in domains of WPAI:SHP by patients with PsA have a limited threshold of meaning due to the absence of published minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). Our objective was to determine the MCIDs for improvement in WPAI:SHP in patients with active PsA. METHODS: MCIDs for WPAI:SHP domains (presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment) were derived for patients with active PsA who were biologic naïve or TNF inhibitor (TNFi) experienced using 24-week results from two phase 3 trials (SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2). MCIDs were derived using the anchor-based method supplemented by the distribution-based method. Anchors included achievement of the American College of Rheumatology 20 responder index (ACR20), the minimal disease activity (MDA), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Disability Index (HAQ-DI) MCID (improvement ≥ 0.35). Anchor validity was assessed by biserial correlation and analysis of covariance modeling against the domains. MCIDs were triangulated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method supplemented by the distribution-based method. RESULTS: The analyses included 417 biologic-naïve and 363 TNFi-experienced patients. ACR20, MDA, and HAQ-DI were valid anchors. Significant differences in WPAI:SHP domain scores were observed between patients achieving ACR20, MDA, or HAQ-DI compared to patients not achieving these clinical thresholds (all P < 0.001). ROC analyses suggested that a ≥ 20% improvement in presenteeism, a 15% improvement in work productivity loss, and a 20% improvement in activity impairment represented clinically meaningful improvements in both populations. The distribution-based method supported the results. CONCLUSION: MCIDs for the presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment domains were estimated to be 20%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, in biologic-naïve or TNFi-experienced PsA populations. These results will help improve the meaningfulness of WPAI:SHP improvements reported by PsA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-P1: NCT01695239, SPIRIT-P2: NCT02349295. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Safety and Efficacy of Open-label Subcutaneous Ixekizumab Treatment for 48 Weeks in a Phase II Study in Biologic-naive and TNF-IR Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody, for safety and effectiveness through 64 weeks in biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor-inadequate responder (TNF-IR) patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients completing the 16-week double-blind period of a phase II study were eligible to enter the open-label extension (OLE) for an additional 48 weeks of ixekizumab treatment. After a treatment hiatus between weeks 10 to 16, 232 biologic-naive and 158 TNF-IR patients entered the OLE with all patients receiving 160 mg ixekizumab at weeks 16, 18, and 20, and then every 4 weeks through Week 64. RESULTS: A total of 201 (87%) biologic-naive and 99 (62%) TNF-IR patients completed the OLE. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) occurred in 168 (72%) biologic-naive and 115 (73%) TNF-IR patients during the OLE. Most AE were mild to moderate in severity and did not lead to study discontinuation. Serious AE (SAE) occurred in 17 (7%) biologic-naive patients, including 5 (2%) serious infections and 2 (1%) deaths. SAE occurred in 18 (11%) TNF-IR patients, including 4 (3%) serious infections and 1 (1%) death. No mycobacterial or invasive fungal infections were reported. Clinical responses [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, ACR70, and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein] observed at Week 16 were maintained or improved through Week 64. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab was well tolerated, and safety findings in the OLE were consistent overall with those in the double-blind period of this study. Clinical improvements observed with ixekizumab through Week 16 were maintained or improved in patients participating in the OLE through Week 64. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00966875.

Efficacy of Thiopurines in Biologic-Naive Japanese Patients With Crohn's Disease: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Early use of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) improves quality of life. However, the effects of the early use of immunomodulators on long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of immunomodulators in patients with CD. METHODS: Between January 2004 and December 2011, 47 biologic-naive CD patients treated with thiopurines alone for remission maintenance were analyzed. The patients were classified into 2 groups depending on the presence or absence of digestive complications. We evaluated the efficacy of and predictive factors for thiopurine use for remission maintenance. RESULTS: The cumulative relapse rates at 24 and 60 months were 13.7% and 35.4%, respectively. Regarding patient characteristics, there was a significant difference in patient history of surgery between the non-relapse and relapse groups (P=0.021). The cumulative relapse rate was lower in patients without a history of surgery than in those with such a history (27.2% and 52.9% at 60.0 months, respectively). Multivariate analysis suggested that the prevalence of stricturing and penetrating complications is an independent factor for relapse. The cumulative relapse rate in patients without a history of surgery was significantly lower in the non-stricturing and non-penetrating group than in the stricturing and penetrating group (11.8% at 85.0 months vs. 58.5% at 69.0 months; P=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Thiopurine use might be beneficial for the long-term maintenance of remission in biologic-naive Crohn's disease patients without digestive complications and a history of surgery.