Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Background: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naive) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, >/=75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naive patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naive and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naive or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naive patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naive to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX)

Ixekizumab and complete resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis: integrated analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials in psoriatic arthritis

Abstract Background Ixekizumab improves signs/symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We present an integrated analysis of baseline disease burden and post-baseline outcomes in ixekizumab-treated patients with enthesitis or dactylitis. Methods Data from SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 were integrated. Patients with PsA were randomized to 80-mg ixekizumab every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or 2 weeks (IXEQ2W), after a 160-mg starting dose, or to placebo. Inadequate responders at week 16 received rescue therapy. Among patients with baseline enthesitis (Leeds Enthesitis Index [LEI] > 0) or dactylitis (Leeds Dactylitis Index-Basic [LDI-B] > 0), baseline characteristics and disease burden were reported. At week 24, LEI and LDI-B (percentage of patients with resolution [LEI = 0, LDI-B = 0]) were assessed. In pooled treatment groups, the impact of enthesitis or dactylitis resolution on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EuroQol-5 Dimensions Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-5D VAS]), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), and pain was assessed. Results The integrated analysis set comprised 679 patients; of these, 60% (n = 403 of 675) had baseline enthesitis (LEI > 0) and 23% (n = 155 of 676) had baseline dactylitis (LDI > 0). At week 24, ixekizumab-treated patients experienced significantly more resolution than placebo of enthesitis (39% IXEQ4W, 35% IXEQ2W, 21% placebo) and dactylitis (78% IXEQ4W, 65% IXEQ2W, 24% placebo). Furthermore, at entheseal points measured by the LEI, ixekizumab-treated patients had significantly higher resolution of enthesitis compared to placebo. At week 24, among all placebo- and ixekizumab-treated patients, resolution of enthesitis was associated with improvements in function and HRQoL whereas dactylitis resolution was associated with more limited improvements. The least squares mean HAQ-DI improvements from baseline were − 0.44 and − 0.25 for patients who did/did not resolve enthesitis, and − 0.41 and − 0.31 for patients who did/did not resolve dactylitis. EQ-5D VAS improvements were 12.3 and 5.8 for patients who did/did not resolve enthesitis, and 10.8 and 9.8 for patients who did/did not resolve dactylitis. Conclusions Among patients with pre-existing enthesitis or dactylitis, IXEQ2W- and IXEQ4W-treatment resulted in significant improvements in enthesitis and dactylitis. Enthesitis resolution was associated with improvements in patients’ function, pain, and HRQoL. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01695239, registered on September 25, 2012, and NCT02349295, registered on October 10, 2014

Defining and evaluating novel procedures for involving patients in Core Outcome Set research: creating a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains

Background Tinnitus is a complex audiological condition affecting many different domains of everyday life. Clinical trials of tinnitus interventions measure and report those outcome domains inconsistently and this hinders direct comparison between study findings. To address this problem, an ongoing project is developing a Core Outcome Set; an agreed list of outcome domains to be measured and reported in all future trials. Part of this project uses a consensus methodology (‘Delphi’ survey), whereby all relevant stakeholders identify important and critical outcome domains from a long list of candidates. This article addresses a gap in the patient involvement literature by describing and reflecting on our involvement of patients to create a meaningful long list of candidate outcome domains. Methods Two Public Research Partners with lived experience of tinnitus reviewed an initial list of 124 outcome domains over two face-to-face workshops. With the Study Management Team, they interpreted each candidate outcome domain and generated a plain language description. Following this, the domain names and descriptions underwent an additional lay review by 14 patients and 5 clinical experts, via an online survey platform. Results Insights gained from the workshops and survey feedback prompted substantial, unforeseen modifications to the long list. These included the reduction of the number of outcome domains (from 124 to 66) via the exclusion of broad concepts and consolidation of equivalent domains or domains outside the scope of the study. Reviewers also applied their lived experience of tinnitus to bring clarity and relevance to domain names and plain language descriptions. Four impacts on the Delphi survey were observed: recruitment exceeded the target by 171%, there were equivalent numbers of patient and professional participants (n=358 and n=312, respectively), feedback was mostly positive, and retention was high (87%). Conclusions Patient involvement was an integral and transformative step of the study design process. Patient involvement was impactful because the online Delphi survey was successful in recruiting and retaining participants, and there were many comments about a positive participatory experience. Seven general methodological features are highlighted which fit with general principles of good patient involvement. These can benefit other Core Outcome Set developers

Initiating Evaluation of Composite Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis:2022 Updates From the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) working group-comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, methodologists, and patient research partners-provided updates at the GRAPPA 2022 annual meeting on its work to evaluate composite outcome measures for PsA. Ten composite outcome measures were considered. Initial steps were to define the population, the purpose of use, and the proposed pros and cons of the 10 candidate composite instruments for PsA. Preliminary Delphi exercises within the working group and GRAPPA stakeholders confirmed high priority for evaluating minimal disease activity (MDA); moderate priority for Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), 3 visual analog scale (VAS), and 4VAS; and low priority for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), Psoriatic Arthritis Responder Criteria (PsARC), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3). Further appraisal of candidate composite instruments is ongoing.</p

International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials

© 2017 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. Objective To identify a core set of domains (outcomes) to be measured in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical trials that represent both patients' and physicians' priorities. Methods We conducted (1) a systematic literature review (SLR) of domains assessed in PsA; (2) international focus groups to identify domains important to people with PsA; (3) two international surveys with patients and physicians to prioritise domains; (4) an international face-To-face meeting with patients and physicians using the nominal group technique method to agree on the most important domains; and (5) presentation and votes at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) conference in May 2016. All phases were performed in collaboration with patient research partners. Results We identified 39 unique domains through the SLR (24 domains) and international focus groups (34 domains). 50 patients and 75 physicians rated domain importance. During the March 2016 consensus meeting, 12 patients and 12 physicians agreed on 10 candidate domains. Then, 49 patients and 71 physicians rated these domains' importance. Five were important to >70% of both groups: musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, structural damage, pain and physical function. Fatigue and participation were important to >70% of patients. Patient global and systemic inflammation were important to >70% of physicians. The updated PsA core domain set endorsed by 90% of OMERACT 2016 participants includes musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, pain, patient global, physical function, health-related quality of life, fatigue and systemic inflammation. Conclusions The updated PsA core domain set incorporates patients' and physicians' priorities and evolving PsA research. Next steps include identifying outcome measures that adequately assess these domains

Achieving minimal disease activity in psoriatic arthritis predicts meaningful improvements in patients’ health-related quality of life and productivity

Background Although psoriatic arthritis is complex and involves multiple domains, recent advances in treatments have made remission or near-remission of most symptoms a potentially achievable goal for many patients. We sought to evaluate whether achieving minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria represented meaningful improvement from the patient perspective. Methods Data were combined from two randomized, multinational, 24 week clinical studies of ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting interleukin-17A, in biological drug-naïve or experienced adults. MDA required 5 of 7 of: tender joint count ≤1; swollen joint count ≤1; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index total score ≤ 1 or body surface area ≤ 3%; patient’s assessment of pain visual analogue scale (VAS) ≤15; patient’s global assessment of disease activity VAS ≤20; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index ≤0.5; and tender entheseal points ≤ 1. MDA responders and non-responders were compared for mean change from baseline on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5 L); EQ-5D-5 L VAS; and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment–Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP) questionnaire. Results MDA responders had significantly greater improvements versus non-responders in each SF-36 domain and in the SF-36 physical summary score; improvements were also greater in the EQ-5D-5 L and EQ-5D-5 L VAS, and in 3 of the 4 WPAI-SHP domains. MDA responders were more likely to achieve minimal clinically important differences than non-responders. Conclusion These findings support MDA response as being strongly associated with achieving improved disease status based on measures of patient reported health-related quality of life and productivity. Trial registration SPIRIT-P1, NCT01695239, First Posted: September 27, 2012; and SPIRIT-P2, NCT02349295, First Posted: January 28, 2015

Social Media Use for Health-Related Purposes By People with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases - Results of a Global Survey

Background/Purpose: In Malaysia around one in ten older people are diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA), with the knee being one of the most commonly affected areas. This can lead to functional limitations, impaired activities of daily living and reduced quality-of-life. Our systematic review of the literature concludes that a programme integrating exercise, education and active coping strategies, known as Enabling Self-management and Coping with Arthritic Pain using Exercise (ESCAPE-pain) provides the best evidence for implementation. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the feasibility of the ESCAPE-pain programme among patients with knee OA in the Malaysian healthcare context. Methods: A pragmatic, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted recruiting patients with knee osteoarthritis from two hospitals in Malaysia. Participants were randomised to receive ESCAPE-pain intervention plus usual care (n=36) (intervention group) or usual care only (n=36) (control group). Outcomes were measured for physical function (TUG), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS), mental wellbeing (Short-WEMWBS), exercise health beliefs and self-efficacy (ExBeliefs) and fear of falling (Short-FES-I) at baseline, six-week and after 12-week of intervention. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (p>0.05). Recruitment rate showed 90.5% (72/105) and retention rate at 12-week was 87.5% (63/72). Attendance to intervention programme at ≥10 of 12 sessions was high (82.4%). Using modified intention-to-treat analysis, repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant changes (p>0.05) for TUG or KOOS between intervention and control groups. However, better outcomes (p<0.05) were reported after 12 weeks for health beliefs, mental wellbeing, and fear of falling among patients in intervention group. Satisfaction survey among participants revealed that the ESCAPE-pain programme is easy to follow, straightforward and tolerable for future implementation. Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the ESCAPE-pain programme is feasible for patients with knee OA in Malaysia. As a feasibility study, this is not powered to detect significant differences on primary KOOS outcomes, nonetheless participants reported positive views towards exercise with significant improvements in belief in performing activities, mental wellbeing and reduced fear of falling

Anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA in the SLICC classification criteria dataset

OBJECTIVE: Anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA is a common isotype of anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I in SLE. Anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I was not included in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria, but was included in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) criteria. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anti-beta 2-glycoprotein I IgA in SLE versus other rheumatic diseases. In addition, we examined the association between anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA and disease manifestations in SLE. METHODS: The dataset consisted of 1384 patients, 657 with a consensus physician diagnosis of SLE and 727 controls with other rheumatic diseases. Anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I isotypes were measured by ELISA. Patients with a consensus diagnosis of SLE were compared to controls with respect to presence of anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I. Among patients with SLE, we assessed the association between anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA and clinical manifestations. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA was 14% in SLE patients and 7% in rheumatic disease controls (odds ratio, OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.6, 3.3). It was more common in SLE patients who were younger patients and of African descent (p = 0.019). Eleven percent of SLE patients had anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA alone (no anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgG or IgM). There was a significant association between anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA and anti-dsDNA (p = 0.001) and the other antiphospholipid antibodies (p = 0.0004). There was no significant correlation of anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA with any of the other ACR or SLICC clinical criteria for SLE. Those with anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA tended to have a history of thrombosis (12% vs 6%, p = 0.071), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We found the anti-beta 2 glycoprotein I IgA isotype to be more common in patients with SLE and in particular, with African descent. It could occur alone without other isotypes

Measurement properties of radiographic outcome measures in Psoriatic Arthritis: A systematic review from the GRAPPA-OMERACT initiative

Background: Structural damage is as an important outcome in the Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set and its assessment is recommended at least once in the development of a new drug.Objectives: To conduct a systematic review (SR) to identify studies addressing the measurement properties of radiographic outcome instruments for structural damage in PsA and appraise the evidence through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Framework Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA).Methods: A SR was conducted using search strategies in EMBASE and MEDLINE to identify full-text English studies which aimed to develop or assess the measurement properties of radiographic outcome instruments in PsA. Determination of eligibility and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers with input from a third to achieve consensus. Two reviewers assessed the methodology and results of eligible studies and synthesized the evidence using OMERACT methodology. Results: Twelve articles evaluating radiographic instruments were included. The articles assessed nine peripheral (hands, wrists and/or feet) and six axial (spinal and/or sacroiliac joints) radiographic instruments. The peripheral radiographic instruments with some evidence for reliability, cross-sectional construct validity and longitudinal construct validity were the Ratingen and modified Sharp van der Heijde scores. No instruments had evidence for clinical trial discrimination or thresholds of meaning. There was limited evidence for the measurement properties of all identified axial instruments.Conclusion: There are significant knowledge gaps in the responsiveness of peripheral radiographic instruments. Axial radiographic instruments require further validation, and the need to generate novel instruments and utilise other imaging modalities should be considered.(c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Set of Outcomes That Matter to People Living With Inflammatory Arthritis: Consensus From an International Working Group

© 2018, The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology. Objective: The implementation of value-based health care in inflammatory arthritis requires a standardized set of modifiable outcomes and risk-adjustment variables that is feasible to implement worldwide. Methods: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary working group that consisted of 24 experts from 6 continents, including 6 patient representatives, to develop a standard set of outcomes for inflammatory arthritis. The process followed a structured approach, using a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the following decision areas: conditions covered by the set, outcome domains, outcome measures, and risk-adjustment variables. Consensus in areas 2 to 4 were supported by systematic literature reviews and consultation of experts. Results: The ICHOM Inflammatory Arthritis Standard Set covers patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We recommend that outcomes regarding pain, fatigue, activity limitations, overall physical and mental health impact, work/school/housework ability and productivity, disease activity, and serious adverse events be collected at least annually. Validated measures for patient-reported outcomes were endorsed and linked to common reporting metrics. Age, sex at birth, education level, smoking status, comorbidities, time since diagnosis, and rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody lab testing for RA and JIA should be collected as risk-adjustment variables. Conclusion: We present the ICHOM inflammatory arthritis Standard Set of outcomes, which enables health care providers to implement the value-based health care framework and compare outcomes that are important to patients with inflammatory arthritis