Patient Experiences, Satisfaction, and Expectations with Current Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatment: Results of the SLE-UPDATE Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To provide information on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients' experiences, satisfaction, and expectations with treatments and examine the association between treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: A cross-sectional, non-interventional, online survey of US adult patients with SLE was conducted in 2019. The survey consisted of 104 questions about SLE and the following PRO instruments: LupusPRO™, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), an 11-point Worst Pain Numerical Rating scale (NRS), and an 11-point Worst Joint Pain NRS. RESULTS: Five hundred participants (75% female, 76% White/Caucasian, mean age 42.6 ± 12.7 years, 63% with an associate degree or higher) completed the survey. Most participants were "completely" or "somewhat satisfied" with their treatments, although satisfaction rates were lower for corticosteroids (65%), immunosuppressants (71%), and anti-malarials (55%) than for belimumab (intravenous or subcutaneous) (86%) and rituximab (94%). Treatments were more often considered "burdensome" or "very burdensome" for belimumab (67%) and rituximab (63%) than for corticosteroids (48%), immunosuppressants (49%), and anti-malarials (30%). Pain and productivity assessments supported substantial impairment for the majority of participants, even those who indicated that they were completely satisfied with treatments. The treatment goals most commonly reported as "very important" were reducing fatigue, pain, and the frequency or severity of flares. Three-quarters of participants (76.6%) indicated that their physician's goals for their therapy matched their own goals "very" or "somewhat closely." Despite high levels of satisfaction, most participants (63.0%) indicated that their physicians had not asked about their treatment goals during the past 3 months. CONCLUSION: SLE patients reported high rates of satisfaction with current therapies despite identifying substantial treatment burdens, residual pain, and fatigue. Reduced fatigue, pain, and flares were the most important treatment goals for these patients.

The ALPHA Project: Establishing consensus and prioritisation of global community recommendations to address major challenges in lupus diagnosis, care, treatment and research.

The Addressing Lupus Pillars for Health Advancement (ALPHA) Project is a global consensus effort to identify, prioritise and address top barriers in lupus impacting diagnosis, care, treatment and research. To conduct this process, the ALPHA Project convened a multistakeholder Global Advisory Committee (GAC) of lupus experts and collected input from global audiences, including patients. In phase I, the ALPHA Project used expert interviews and a global survey of lupus experts to identify and categorise barriers into three overarching pillars: drug development, clinical care and access to care. In phase II, reported here, the GAC developed recommended actionable solutions to address these previously identified barriers through an in-person stakeholder meeting, followed by a two-round scoring process. Recommendations were assessed for feasibility, impact and timeline for implementation (FIT), where potential FIT component values were between 1 and 3 and total scores were between 3 and 9. Higher scores represented higher achievability based on the composite of the three criteria. Simplifying and standardising outcomes measures, including steroid sparing as an outcome (drug development) and defining the lupus spectrum (clinical care) ranked as the highest two priority solutions during the GAC meeting and received high FIT scores (7.67 and 7.44, respectively). Leveraging social media (access to care) received the highest FIT score across all pillars (7.86). Cross-cutting themes of many solutions include leveraging digital technology and applying specific considerations for special populations, including paediatrics. Implementing the recommendations to address key barriers to drug development, clinical care and access to care is essential to improving the quality of life of adults and children with lupus. Multistakeholder collaboration and guidance across existing efforts globally is warranted.

Establishing Consensus Understanding of the Barriers to Drug Development in Lupus.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the extreme heterogeneity of lupus and the lack of consensus among stakeholders, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have had limited success in developing treatments for lupus. For this reason, the Lupus Foundation of America (LFA), researchers at the Center for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University School of Medicine (Tufts CSDD) and an advisory committee of 13 international lupus experts collaborated to launch the Addressing Lupus Pillars for Health Advancement (ALPHA) project. METHODS: To inform the ALPHA project, 17 in-depth interviews among lupus experts and a global survey among lupus drug development and clinical care professionals was conducted to identify, characterize, and prioritize fundamental barriers and validate findings. RESULTS: The global survey received 127 responses from experts across 20 countries. Results of the in-depth interviews and the survey findings were consistent. Top barriers to developing new medical treatments for lupus included the lack of a clear definition of the disease with respondents identifying 30 autoimmune conditions that may be lupus-related; lack of predictive biomarkers; flaws in clinical trial designs; and a lack of reliable outcome measures. CONCLUSION: The study findings encourage drug development professionals to validate disease-specific measures and to identify if specific symptoms are caused by lupus. This original research also provides a methodology that can be applied to highly heterogenous diseases where low consensus on diagnosis and treatment exists among drug development and health professionals.

SLE clinical trials: impact of missing data on estimating treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE: A common problem in clinical trials is missing data due to participant dropout and loss to follow-up, an issue which continues to receive considerable attention in the clinical research community. Our objective was to examine and compare current and alternative methods for handling missing data in SLE trials with a particular focus on multiple imputation, a flexible technique that has been applied in different disease settings but not to address missing data in the primary outcome of an SLE trial. METHODS: Data on 279 patients with SLE randomised to standard of care (SoC) and also receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), azathioprine or methotrexate were obtained from the Lupus Foundation of America-Collective Data Analysis Initiative Database. Complete case analysis (CC), last observation carried forward (LOCF), non-responder imputation (NRI) and multiple imputation (MI) were applied to handle missing data in an analysis to assess differences in SLE Responder Index-5 (SRI-5) response rates at 52 weeks between patients on SoC treated with MMF versus other immunosuppressants (non-MMF). RESULTS: The rates of missing data were 32% in the MMF and 23% in the non-MMF groups. As expected, the NRI missing data approach yielded the lowest estimated response rates. The smallest and least significant estimates of differences between groups were observed with LOCF, and precision was lowest with the CC method. Estimated between-group differences were magnified with the MI approach, and imputing SRI-5 directly versus deriving SRI-5 after separately imputing its individual components yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The potential advantages of applying MI to address missing data in an SLE trial include reduced bias when estimating treatment effects, and measures of precision that properly reflect uncertainty in the imputations. However, results can vary depending on the imputation model used, and the underlying assumptions should be plausible. Sensitivity analysis should be conducted to demonstrate robustness of results, especially when missing data proportions are high.

Global consensus building and prioritisation of fundamental lupus challenges: the ALPHA project.

OBJECTIVE: Lupus is a complex, heterogeneous autoimmune disease that has yet to see significant progress towards more timely diagnosis, improved treatment options for short-term and long-term outcomes, and appropriate access to care. The Addressing Lupus Pillars for Health Advancement (ALPHA) project is the first step in establishing global consensus and developing concrete strategies to address the challenges limiting progress. METHODS: A Global Advisory Committee of 13 individuals guided the project and began barrier identification. Seventeen expert interviews were conducted to further characterise key barriers. Transcripts were analysed using Nvivo and a codebook was created containing a list of thematic 'nodes' (topics) and their descriptions. Findings were used to develop a final survey instrument that was fielded to a diverse, international stakeholder audience to achieve broad consensus. RESULTS: Expert interviews identified lupus heterogeneity as the primary barrier hindering advancement. Subsequent barriers were categorised into three areas: (1) Drug development. (2) Clinical care. (3) Access and value. The global survey received 127 completed responses from experts across 20 countries. Respondents identified barriers as high priority including the lack of biomarkers for clinical and drug development use, flawed clinical trial design, lack of access to clinicians familiar with lupus, and obstacles to effective management of lupus due to social determinants of care. Respondents also identified 30 autoimmune conditions that may be lupus-related based on overlapping features, shared autoantibodies and pathophysiology. CONCLUSIONS: ALPHA is a comprehensive initiative to identify and prioritise the continuum of challenges facing people with lupus by engaging a global audience of lupus experts. It also explored views on lupus as a spectrum of related diseases. Conclusions from this effort provide a framework to generate actionable approaches to the identified high-priority barriers.

Hydroxychloroquine usage in US patients, their experiences of tolerability and adherence, and implications for treatment: survey results from 3127 patients with SLE conducted by the Lupus Foundation of America.

The majority of patients with SLE in the USA have been prescribed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Given more recent guidelines, the availability of only one strength (200 mg tablets) may limit the flexibility and ability to accurately dose patients with lupus. The Lupus Foundation of America undertook a survey to assess the current landscape of HCQ tolerability and adherence.

Development and content validity of the Lupus Foundation of America rapid evaluation of activity in lupus (LFA-REAL™): a patient-reported outcome measure for lupus disease activity.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The LFA REAL™ is a measurement system for evaluating lupus disease activity from both clinician and patient perspectives. Patients' viewpoints are captured using a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire. A series of visual analog scales are designed to rate disease severity and progress over the past 4 weeks. Brief instructions guide the patient to distinguish between active, potentially reversible symptoms and chronic pain or discomfort that are more likely due to damage. Beyond its simplicity and efficiency, the PRO can provide versatile assessments from a global, organ-based, and symptom-specific level. This paper describes the patient-centered approach used to evaluate the content validity of the LFA-REAL PRO. METHODS: The PRO was developed in accordance with FDA guidance. A two-phase qualitative study was performed with 25 lupus patients, 10 who participated in concept elicitation (Phase 1) and 15 in cognitive debriefing interviews (Phase 2). Qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software v7.5. Upon completion of the interviews, participants completed the draft PRO and additional measures to characterize the sample. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 45.6 and 88% were female, as expected in a lupus population. The mean SF-36 physical component score was 29.8 and the mean mental component score was 46.4. Phase 1 elicited symptom saturation and mapping of the draft PRO. Fatigue was reported by 100% of patients, highlighting its importance as a measurable domain. Additionally, 100% of patients spontaneously mentioned arthritis, which may be more important to this group than previously estimated, substantiating the approach of this PRO to break down components of arthritis into joint pain, stiffness, and swelling. Shortness of breath and fever were reported more frequently than expected. Phase 2 data demonstrated that participants found the instrument easy to use and offered recommendations to improve clarity, leading to adjustments in wording and formatting. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the LFA-REAL PRO has content validity and, with some modifications suggested by participants, is ready for quantitative validation, including tests of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and performance relative to other PROs used in lupus trials. After validation, the LFA-REAL system is intended for use in clinical practice and research.

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

The Spectrum of Health Domains Important to Lupus Patients Early Development of a Disease Activity Patient Reported Outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) face lifelong challenges from chronic and disabling symptoms. The toolkit for assessing patient progress lacks a simple, scalable index that includes both physician assessments and patient experiences. Clinician and patient reported outcomes (ClinROs and PROs) were developed in isolation and discrepancies in their results promote confusion. The Lupus Foundation of America-Rapid Evaluation of Activity in Lupus (LFA-REAL™) was designed as a simple, versatile instrument of simple additive scales. Dual physician and patient components allow for a complete evaluation of disease activity. This report presents the early development of the LFA-REAL™ PRO. METHODS: An initial focus group was conducted consisting of 10 SLE patients who ranked 32 areas of health and identified additional domains that are important to people with lupus. Subsequently, 19 domains were ranked by 100 consecutive patients with SLE from New York and Oklahoma City. RESULTS: The 10 focus group participants were female and had a mean age of 38.6. The dimensions they identified were generally in two categories: symptoms and impacts. The main symptoms were fatigue, joint and muscle pain, and general pain. The main impacts were sleep, drug side effects, and physical well-being. The 100 patients with SLE (90% female, mean age 37.5 years) ranked the 19 fields of health in order of importance. The top eight domains ranked were joint and muscle pain, fatigue, experience of quality of life, general pain, physical well-being, emotional well-being, organ involvement, and family life. Clinicians reviewed the data and decided on an instrument that would differentiate between lupus related symptoms and impact on quality of life as well as differentiate active symptoms from chronic damage. The disease activity instrument draft included all the identified symptoms: rash, joint symptoms (pains, stiffness, and swelling), muscle pain, fatigue, organ involvement symptoms (fever, chest pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, and other), and hair loss. DISCUSSION: The PRO derived here is a composite disease activity instrument to accompany the physician reported assessment. The ClinRO and the PRO will provide the spectrum of lupus disease activity and bring the patient's experience and provide essential quantitative data to the evaluation of lupus in routine clinical care and clinical research.

Evaluating duration of response to treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response duration and identify predictors of transitioning into and out of the response state in patients with SLE receiving standard of care (SoC) in 52-week clinical trials. METHODS: A multistate model (MSM) allowing for bidirectional transitions between response and non-response states was fit to data on 759 patients with SLE with active disease randomised to SoC. The probability of being in response at 52 weeks, average duration of response (sojourn time) and mean total time in response for SLE Responder Index (SRI-4, SRI-5, SRI-6) and BILAG-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) were estimated. Predictors of attainment and loss of SRI-5 response were also assessed. RESULTS: The MSM estimated probability of being in response at 52 weeks ranged from 42% (SRI-6) to 61% (SRI-4). Mean duration of response ranged from 20.4 weeks (BICLA) to 31.5 weeks (SRI-4). Mean total time in response was 16.4-24.8 weeks. Baseline characteristics predictive of shorter SRI-5 response duration were African descent (p=0.005), longer history of disease (p=0.03), higher anti-dsDNA antibody titres (p=0.039), lower lymphocyte count (p=0.008) and lower haemoglobin (p=0.006). Younger age (p<0.001) and higher protein/creatinine ratio (p<0.001) were associated with higher likelihood of achieving SRI-5 but also shorter response duration. CONCLUSION: Factors associated with disease severity were more predictive of shorter response duration than of 52-week response status. Analysing landmark response rates and response duration using MSM may be a more powerful way to distinguish effective investigational treatments from background SoC, although this remains to be evaluated in future trials.

Lupus community panel proposals for optimising clinical trials: 2018.

Formidable impediments stand in the way of treatment development for lupus. These include the unwieldy size of current trials, international competition for scarce patients, complex outcome measures and a poor understanding of these outcomes in the world at large. The heterogeneity of the disease itself coupled to superimposition of variegated background polypharmacy has created enough immunological noise to virtually ensure the failure of lupus treatment trials, leaving an understandable suspicion that at least some of the results in testing failed drugs over the years may not have been negative, but merely uninterpretable. The authors have consulted with many clinical trial investigators, biopharmaceutical developers and stakeholders from government and voluntary sectors. This paper examines the available evidence that supports workable trial designs and proposes approaches to improve the odds of completing interpretable treatment development programs for lupus.

Comparison of the Lupus Foundation of America-Rapid Evaluation of Activity in Lupus to More Complex Disease Activity Instruments As Evaluated by Clinical Investigators or Real-World Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Lupus disease measures such as the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index are challenging to interpret. The Lupus Foundation of America-Rapid Evaluation of Activity in Lupus (LFA-REAL) is intended to provide an efficient application of anchored visual analog scores, each representing the individual severity of active symptoms, with the sum of individual scores deriving an overall disease activity assessment. Our objective was to compare the performance of LFA-REAL to systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity assessments and compare scores between trained lupus clinical investigators and clinicians. METHODS: Investigators scored the SLEDAI, BILAG, physician's global assessment (PGA), and LFA-REAL, while the clinicians scored the LFA-REAL. The level of agreement between physicians and instruments was determined. RESULTS: The study included 99 patients (93% women, 31% white, mean ± SD ages 43.4 ± 13.2 years). At the first visit, the mean ± SD SLEDAI score was 5.5 ± 4.5, BILAG score 6.7 ± 7.8, and PGA score 33.6 ± 24.5. The mean ± SD investigator LFA-REAL score was 46.2 ± 42.9, and clinician LFA-REAL score 56.1 ± 53.6. At the second visit, the mean ± SD investigator LFA-REAL score was 41.3 ± 36.7, and clinician LFA-REAL score 48.3 ± 42.6. Total LFA-REAL scores correlated positively with PGA, SLEDAI, and BILAG (ρ = 0.58-0.88, P < 0.001). LFA-REAL scores produced correlation coefficients of ρ > 0.7 for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, and renal BILAG domains. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the LFA-REAL scores of investigators and clinicians was 0.79 for visit 1 (P < 0.001) and 0.86 for visit 2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The LFA-REAL provides a reliable surrogate for more complicated disease activity measures when used by lupus clinical investigators or clinicians.

Preliminary test of the LFA rapid evaluation of activity in lupus (LFA-REAL): an efficient outcome measure correlates with validated instruments.

OBJECTIVE: Current disease activity measures for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are difficult to score or interpret and problematic for use in clinical practice. Lupus Foundation of America (LFA)-Rapid Evaluation of Activity in Lupus (REAL) is a pilot application composed of anchored visual analogue scores (0-100 mm each) for each organ affected by lupus. This study evaluated the use of LFA-REAL in capturing SLE disease activity. METHODS: In a preliminary test of LFA-REAL, this simplified, organ-based system was compared with the most widely used outcome measures in clinical trials, the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 Index (BILAG), the SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment (SELENA) SLEDAI Physician's Global Assessment (SS-PGA). The level of agreement was analysed using Spearman rank correlations. RESULTS: 91 patients with SLE with mild to severe disease activity were evaluated, their median SLEDAI score was 4.0 (range 0-28) and BILAG score 8.0 (0-32). The median SS-PGA was 38 mm (4-92) versus the total REAL 50 mm (0-268), which expands in range by additive organ scores. Thirty-three patients had moderate to severe disease activity (≥1.5 on SS-PGA landmarks). The median SS-PGA score of this group was 66 mm (50-92) versus median REAL score of 100 mm (59-268), confirming ability to detect a wider distribution of scores at higher disease activity. Total REAL correlated with SLEDAI, BILAG and SS-PGA (correlation coefficient=0.816, 0.933 and 0.903, respectively; p<0.001 for all). Individual LFA-REAL organ scores for musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous also correlated with corresponding BILAG domain scores (correlation coefficient=0.925 and 0.934, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary exercise, there were strong correlations between LFA-REAL and validated lupus disease activity indices. Further development may be valuable for consistent scoring in clinical trials, grading optimal assessment of change in disease activity and reliable monitoring of patients in practice.