Randomized controlled trial design in rheumatoid arthritis: the past decade

Much progress has occurred over the past decade in rheumatoid arthritis trial design. Recognized challenges have led to the establishment of a clear regulatory pathway to demonstrate efficacy of a new therapeutic. The use of pure placebo beyond 12 to 16 weeks has been demonstrated to be unethical and thus background therapy and/or early rescue has become regular practice. Goals of remission and 'treating to targets' may prove more relevant to identify real-world use of new and existing therapeutics. Identification of rare adverse events associated with new therapies has resulted in intensive safety evaluation during randomized controlled trials and emphasis on postmarketing surveillance and use of registries

OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology

OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process

Poor prognostic factors in predicting abatacept response in a phase III randomized controlled trial in psoriatic arthritis

In ASTRAEA (NCT01860976), abatacept significantly increased American College of Rheumatology criteria 20% (ACR20) responses at Week 24 versus placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis explored relationships between prospectively identified baseline characteristics [poor prognostic factors (PPFs) ] and response to abatacept. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or placebo for 24 weeks; those without ≥ 20% improvement in joint counts at Week 16 switched to open-label abatacept. Potential predictors of ACR20 response were identified by treatment arm using multivariate analyses. Likelihood of ACR20 response to abatacept versus placebo was compared in univariate and multivariate analyses in subgroups stratified by the PPF, as defined by EULAR and/or GRAPPA treatment guidelines. Odds ratios (ORs) were generated using logistic regression to identify meaningful differences (OR cut-off: 1.2). 424 patients were randomized and treated (abatacept n = 213; placebo n = 211). In abatacept-treated patients, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), high Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (CRP), presence of dactylitis, and ≥ 3 joint erosions were identified as predictors of response (OR > 1.2). In placebo-treated patients, only dactylitis was a potential predictor of response. In the univariate analysis stratified by PPF, ACR20 response was more likely (OR > 1.2) with abatacept versus placebo in patients with baseline PPFs than in those without; multivariate analysis confirmed this finding. Response to abatacept versus placebo is more likely in patients with features indicative of high disease activity and progressive disease; these characteristics are recognized as PPFs in treatment guidelines for PsA

Effects of tofacitinib monotherapy on patient-reported outcomes in a randomized phase 3 study of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to DMARDs

Baseline and changes from baseline by visit prior to month 3 for patient-reported outcome measures; *p < 0.01; **p < 0.001; ***p < 0.0001 vs placebo. an = 237; bn = 240; cn = 237; dn = 238; en = 231; fn = 241; gn = 243. BID twice daily, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, LSM least squares mean, Pain Patient Global Assessment of Pain, PtGA Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, SD standard deviation, SE standard error. (DOCX 13 kb

Rapid and sustained improvements in health-related quality of life, fatigue, and other patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate over 1 year: results from the RAPID 1 randomized controlled trial

Abstract Introduction The objective of this study was to assess the impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with active RA (N = 982) were randomized 2:2:1 to subcutaneous CZP (400 mg at weeks 0, 2 and 4; followed by CZP 200 mg or 400 mg) plus methotrexate (MTX) every other week, or placebo (PBO) plus MTX. PRO assessments included HRQoL, fatigue, physical function, arthritis pain and disease activity. Adjusted mean changes from baseline in all PROs were obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) applying last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation. The proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvements in each PRO was obtained using logistic regression and by applying non-responder imputation to missing values after rescue medication or withdrawal. The correlations between PRO responses and clinical responses were also assessed by tetrachoric correlation using non-responder imputation. Results Patients treated with CZP plus MTX reported significant (P &lt; 0.001), clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL at the first assessment (week 12); reductions in fatigue, disease activity and pain and improvements in physical function were reported at week 1. In particular, CZP-treated patients reported improvements in mental health. Mean changes from baseline in the SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at week 52 for CZP 200 mg and 400 mg plus MTX, and PBO plus MTX were 6.4, 6.4 and 2.1, respectively (P &lt; 0.001). In addition, mental health and vitality scores in CZP-treated patients approached age- and gender-adjusted US population norms. Improvements in all PROs were sustained. Similar benefits were reported with both CZP doses. Changes in SF-36 MCS scores had the lowest correlation with disease activity scores (DAS28) and American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates, while improvements in pain showed the highest correlation. Conclusions Treatment with CZP plus MTX resulted in rapid and sustained improvements in all PROs, indicating that the benefits of CZP extend beyond clinical efficacy endpoints into areas that are more relevant and meaningful for patients on a daily basis. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00152386

The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology

Biosimilars remain a hot topic in rheumatology, and some physicians are cautious about their application in the real world. With many products coming to market and a wealth of guidelines and recommendations concerning their use, there is a need to understand the changing landscape and the real clinical and health-economic potential offered by these agents. Notably, rheumatologists will be at the forefront of the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies/soluble receptors. Biosimilars offer cost savings and health gains for our patients and will play an important role in treating rheumatic diseases. We hope that these lower costs will compensate for inequities in access to therapy based on economic differences across countries. Since approved biosimilars have already demonstrated highly similar efficacy, it will be most important to establish pharmacovigilance databases across countries that are adequate to monitor long-term safety after marketing approval

Patient-reported outcomes data in patients with psoriatic arthritis from a randomised trial of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapy or in combination.

OBJECTIVES: We examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in The Study of Etanercept And Methotrexate in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA); a 48-week, phase 3, randomised controlled trial that compared outcomes with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, and MTX+ etanercept in patients with PsA. METHODS: Efficacy endpoints included: mean changes from baseline and proportion of patients who reported improvements≥minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 24 in treatment groups for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Patient Global Assessment of Joint Pain (PtGAJP) and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), and Mental Component Summary, and eight domain scores. PROs were analysed as reported (observed), without multiplicity adjustment; therefore, p values are descriptive. RESULTS: At week 24, patients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept combination reported greater improvements (p≤0.05) in PtGA, PtGAJP and SF-36 PCS scores compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. Compared with MTX monotherapy, higher proportions of patients receiving etanercept monotherapy and combination therapy reported improvements≥MCID in PtGA (etanercept vs MTX, p=0.005) and PtGAJP (MTX +etanercept vs MTX, p=0.038). Across PROs, proportions of patients reporting scores≥age and gender-matched normative values at week 24 ranged from 20.8% to 51.0% with MTX monotherapy, 30.9% to 48.8% with etanercept monotherapy, and 30.6% to 52.3% with MTX+ etanercept combination. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept reported greater improvements from baseline in several PROs compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. PROs should be incorporated in discussions between patients and clinicians regarding their treatment choices as they can help determine which treatments are more beneficial in patients with PsA

Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Objective: To identify a suitable dosing regimen of the CD22-targeted monoclonal antibody epratuzumab in adults with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods: A phase IIb, multicentre, randomised controlled study (NCT00624351) was conducted with 227 patients (37–39 per arm) receiving either: placebo, epratuzumab 200 mg cumulative dose (cd) (100 mg every other week (EOW)), 800 mg cd (400 mg EOW), 2400 mg cd (600 mg weekly), 2400 mg cd (1200 mg EOW), or 3600 mg cd (1800 mg EOW). The primary endpoint (not powered for significance) was the week 12 responder rate measured using a novel composite endpoint, the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA). Results: Proportion of responders was higher in all epratuzumab groups than with placebo (overall treatment effect test p=0.148). Exploratory pairwise analysis demonstrated clinical improvement in patients receiving a cd of 2400 mg epratuzumab (OR for 600 mg weekly vs placebo: 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.8), nominal p=0.03; OR for 1200 mg EOW vs placebo: 2.6 (0.9 to 7.1), nominal p=0.07). Post-hoc comparison of all 2400 mg cd patients versus placebo found an overall treatment effect (OR=2.9 (1.2 to 7.1), nominal p=0.02). Incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and infusion reactions was similar between epratuzumab and placebo groups, without decreases in immunoglobulin levels and only partial reduction in B-cell levels. Conclusions: Treatment with epratuzumab 2400 mg cd was well tolerated in patients with moderately to severely active SLE, and associated with improvements in disease activity. Phase III studies are ongoing