Patient-reported outcomes in axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis patients treated with secukinumab for 24 months in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating secukinumab, we aimed to assess and compare the proportion of patients achieving 6-, 12- and 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PRO) remission and the 24-month retention rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with axSpA or PsA from 16 European registries, who initiated secukinumab in routine care were included. PRO remission rates were defined as pain, fatigue, Patient Global Assessment (PGA) ≤2 (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0-10) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) ≤0.5, for both axSpA and PsA, and were calculated as crude values and adjusted for drug adherence (LUNDEX). Comparisons of axSpA and PsA remission rates were performed using logistic regression analyses (unadjusted and adjusted for multiple confounders). Kaplan-Meier plots with log-rank test and Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess and compare secukinumab retention rates. RESULTS: We included 3087 axSpA and 3246 PsA patients initiating secukinumab. Crude pain, fatigue, PGA and HAQ remission rates were higher in axSpA than in PsA patients, whereas LUNDEX-adjusted remission rates were similar. No differences were found between the patient groups after adjustment for confounders. The 24-month retention rates were similar in axSpA vs. PsA in fully adjusted analyses (HR [95 %CI] = 0.92 [0.84-1.02]). CONCLUSION: In this large European real-world study of axSpA and PsA patients treated with secukinumab, we demonstrate for the first time a comparable effectiveness in PRO remission and treatment retention rates between these two conditions when adjusted for confounders.

Predictors of ASDAS-CRP inactive disease in axial spondyloarthritis during treatment with TNF-inhibitors: Data from the EuroSpA collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) initiating their first tumor necrosis factor alpha-inhibitor (TNFi), we aimed to identify common baseline predictors of Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS-CRP) inactive disease (primary objective) and clinically important improvement (CII) at 6 months, and drug retention at 12-months across 15 European registries. METHODS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collected. Outcomes were investigated per registry and in pooled data using logistic regression analyses on multiply imputed data. RESULTS: The consistency of baseline predictors in individual registries justified pooling the data. In the pooled dataset (n = 21,196), the 6-month rates for ASDAS inactive disease and ASDAS CII were 26% and 51%, and the 12-month drug retention rate 65% in patients with available data (n = 9,845, n = 6,948 and n = 21,196, respectively). Nine common baseline predictors of ASDAS inactive disease, ASDAS CII and 12-month drug retention were identified, and the odds ratios (95%-confidence interval) for ASDAS inactive disease were: age, per year: 0.97 (0.97-0.98), men vs. women: 1.88 (1.60-2.22), current vs. non-smoking: 0.76 (0.63-0.91), HLA-B27 positive vs. negative: 1.51 (1.20-1.91), TNF start year 2015-2018 vs. 2009-2014: 1.24 (1.06-1.45), CRP>10 vs. ≤10 mg/l: 1.49 (1.25-1.77), one unit increase in health assessment questionnaire (HAQ): 0.77 (0.58-1.03), one-millimeter (mm) increase in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) fatigue and spinal pain: 0.99 (0.99-1.00) and 0.99 (0.99-1.99), respectively CONCLUSION: Common baseline predictors of treatment response and adherence to TNFi could be identified across data from 15 European registries, indicating that they may be universal across different axSpA populations.

Development of a Prediction Model for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. METHODS: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. RESULTS: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. CONCLUSION: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression.

One-Year Treatment Outcomes of Secukinumab Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Spondyloarthritis: Results From Five Nordic Biologic Registries Including More Than 10,000 Treatment Courses.

OBJECTIVE: To describe baseline characteristics and to compare treatment effectiveness of secukinumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) using adalimumab as the main comparator. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective cohort study. Patients with SpA (clinical ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial SpA, or undifferentiated SpA) starting secukinumab or a TNFi during 2015-2018 were identified from 5 Nordic clinical rheumatology registries. Data on comorbidities and extraarticular manifestations (psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease) were captured from national registries (data available in 94% of patients) and included in multivariable analyses. We assessed 1-year treatment retention (crude survival curves, adjusted hazard ratios [HRadj ] for treatment discontinuation) and 6-month response rates (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] score <2.1, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] <40 mm, crude/LUNDEX-adjusted, adjusted logistic regression analyses with odds ratios [ORs]) stratified by line of biologic treatment (first, second, and third plus). RESULTS: In total, 10,853 treatment courses (842 secukinumab and 10,011 TNFi, of which 1,977 were adalimumab) were included. The proportions of patients treated with secukinumab during the first, second, and third-plus lines of treatment were 1%, 6%, and 22%, respectively). Extraarticular manifestations varied across treatments, while other baseline characteristics were largely similar. Secukinumab had a 1-year retention comparable to adalimumab as a first or second line of treatment but poorer as a third-plus line of therapy (secukinumab 56% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 51-61%] versus adalimumab 70% [95% CI 64-75%]; HRadj 1.43 [95% CI 1.12-1.81]). Across treatment lines, secukinumab had poorer estimates for 6-month response rates than adalimumab, statistically significantly only for the third-plus line (adjusted analyses: ASDAS score <2.1 OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.35-0.90]; BASDAI <40 mm OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.41-0.95]). Treatment outcomes varied across the 5 TNFi. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab was mainly used in biologics-experienced patients with SpA. Secukinumab and adalimumab performed similarly in patients who had failed a first biologic, although with increasing prior biologic exposure, adalimumab was superior.