Recapture and retreatment rates with ixekizumab after withdrawal of therapy in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results at week 104 from a randomised placebo-controlled withdrawal study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the recapture of response with open-label (OL) ixekizumab (IXE) retreatment at week 104 in patients with axial spondyloarthritis who flared after withdrawal of IXE therapy. METHODS: COAST-Y (NCT03129100) is a phase III extension study that included a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised withdrawal-retreatment period (RWRP). Patients who achieved remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <1.3 (inactive disease, ID) at least once at week 16 or 20 and <2.1 (low disease activity, LDA) at both visits) were randomised 2:1 at week 24 to continue IXE or withdraw to placebo. Patients who subsequently flared were switched to OL IXE every 2 or 4 weeks (Q2W or Q4W) at the next visit. The proportions of patients who recaptured ASDAS LDA and ID were summarised for those who experienced flare. RESULTS: Of the 155 patients who entered the RWRP (placebo, n=53; IXE Q4W, n=48; IXE Q2W, n=54), 138 (89%) completed week 104. Of the placebo-treated patients (n=53), 28 (53%) experienced a flare during weeks 24-104; of these, 4 (14%) recaptured ASDAS LDA before retreatment with OL IXE, and 23 (82%) recaptured ASDAS LDA and 19 (68%) met ASDAS ID after retreatment. Of the continuously treated IXE patients (n=102), 13 experienced flare; 7 of 13 (54%) recaptured ASDAS LDA before switching to OL IXE retreatment, while 5 of 13 (38%) recaptured ASDAS LDA and 4 of 13 (31%) met ID after switching. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety-six per cent of patients withdrawn to placebo recaptured at least ASDAS LDA and 71% recaptured ASDAS ID with IXE retreatment at week 104. This may provide support to patients who may require a brief interruption in therapy.

Continuing versus withdrawing ixekizumab treatment in patients with axial spondyloarthritis who achieved remission: efficacy and safety results from a placebo-controlled, randomised withdrawal study (COAST-Y).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of COAST-Y was to evaluate the effect of continuing versus withdrawing ixekizumab (IXE) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who had achieved remission. METHODS: COAST-Y is an ongoing, phase III, long-term extension study that included a double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, randomised withdrawal-retreatment period (RWRP). Patients who completed the originating 52-week COAST-V, COAST-W or COAST-X studies entered a 24-week lead-in period and continued either 80 mg IXE every 2 (Q2W) or 4 weeks (Q4W). Patients who achieved remission (an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)<1.3 at least once at week 16 or week 20, and <2.1 at both visits) were randomly assigned equally at week 24 to continue IXE Q4W, IXE Q2W or withdraw to PBO in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of flare-free patients (flare: ASDAS≥2.1 at two consecutive visits or ASDAS>3.5 at any visit) after the 40-week RWRP, with time-to-flare as a major secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Of 773 enrolled patients, 741 completed the 24-week lead-in period and 155 entered the RWRP. Forty weeks after randomised withdrawal, 83.3% of patients in the combined IXE (85/102, p<0.001), IXE Q4W (40/48, p=0.003) and IXE Q2W (45/54, p=0.001) groups remained flare-free versus 54.7% in the PBO group (29/53). Continuing IXE significantly delayed time-to-flare versus PBO, with most patients remaining flare-free for up to 20 weeks after IXE withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with axSpA who continued treatment with IXE were significantly less likely to flare and had significantly delayed time-to-flare compared with patients who withdrew to PBO.

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab with or Without Methotrexate in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: 52-Week Results from SPIRIT-H2H Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the SPIRIT-H2H (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03151551) trial in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ixekizumab (IXE) was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at week 24 in terms of achieving a combined endpoint of ≥ 50% improved response in the American College of Rheumatology scale score (ACR50) and 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Areas and Severity Index (PASI100), and was non-inferior in terms of achieving ACR50. IXE resulted in similar improvements of PsA manifestations irrespective of the use of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), while ADA response was higher with concomitant csDMARD use. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with IXE and ADA with or without methotrexate (MTX), the most commonly use csDMARD, through week 52 in patients with PsA. METHODS: In the open-label, rater-blinded, head-to-head SPIRIT-H2H trial, randomization of patients was stratified by concomitant use of csDMARD and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis involvement. In the post-hoc subgroup analysis presented here, subgroups were defined as with/without concomitant MTX use at baseline. Treatment group effects within subgroups were tested using Fisher's exact test. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation. RESULTS: By week 52, IXE provided similar improvements in the combined ACR50 and PASI100 endpoint, ACR50, and other PsA-related domains regardless of whether IXE was used with or without MTX, while ADA efficacy appeared to be improved with concomitant MTX use. When used without concomitant MTX, IXE resulted in significantly higher response versus ADA in terms of the combined ACR50 and PASI100 (p = 0.002) endpoint, minimal disease activity (p = 0.016), and very low disease activity (p = 0.037). The safety of both agents was consistent with their known safety profiles regardless of concomitant MTX use. CONCLUSION: In PsA patients with inadequate control of the disease, IXE delivers consistent efficacy in several clinical domains of the disease regardless of concomitant MTX use. The efficacy of ADA is increased by the concomitant use of MTX. These findings can inform treatment decisions when considering the need for concomitant MTX use with IXE or ADA at initiation or for long-term maintenance.

Multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab versus adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug: final results by week 52.

OBJECTIVES: SPIRIT head-to-head (H2H) is a 52-week (Wk) trial comparing ixekizumab (IXE) with adalimumab (ADA) for simultaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR)50 and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)100 responses in 566 patients (distributed evenly across both groups) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). IXE was superior to ADA for this primary end point at Wk24. We aimed to determine the final efficacy and safety results through Wk52 including a prespecified subgroup analysis of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) use. METHODS: SPIRIT-H2H is a Wk52 multicentre, open-label, blinded-assessor study comparing IXE and ADA in bionaïve patients with PsA. Patients were randomised 1:1 to IXE or ADA with stratification by concomitant csDMARD use and presence of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Prespecified end points at Wk24 and Wk52 included musculoskeletal, psoriasis, quality-of life outcomes, subgroup analyses and safety. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IXE versus ADA simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 (39% vs 26%, p<0.001), PASI100 (64% vs 41%, p<0.001) at Wk52. Efficacy of IXE and ADA was similar at Wk52 for ACR50 (49.8% vs 49.8%, p=0.924), treat-to-target outcomes, enthesitis and dactylitis resolution. Responses to IXE were consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. Significantly more patients on IXE monotherapy versus ADA monotherapy had simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 (38% vs 19%, p=0.007), and PASI100 responses (66% vs 35%, p<0.001) at Wk52. There were no new safety findings for IXE or ADA. CONCLUSIONS: IXE provided significantly greater simultaneous joint and skin improvement than ADA through Wk52 in bionaïve patients with PsA. IXE showed better efficacy on psoriasis and performed at least as well as ADA on musculoskeletal manifestations. IXE efficacy was consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03151551.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA. METHODS: Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients. RESULTS: For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments. CONCLUSION: Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.

A head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and adalimumab in biological-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a randomised, open-label, blinded-assessor trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) to adalimumab (ADA) in biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with both active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and skin disease and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARDs). METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to approved dosing of IXE or ADA in an open-label, head-to-head, blinded assessor clinical trial. The primary objective was to evaluate whether IXE was superior to ADA at week 24 for simultaneous achievement of a ≥50% improvement from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and a 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI100). Major secondary objectives, also at week 24, were to evaluate whether IXE was: (1) non-inferior to ADA for achievement of ACR50 and (2) superior to ADA for PASI100 response. Additional PsA, skin, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcome measures were assessed at week 24. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was met (IXE: 36%, ADA: 28%; p=0.036). IXE was non-inferior for ACR50 response (IXE: 51%, ADA: 47%; treatment difference: 3.9%) and superior for PASI100 response (IXE: 60%, ADA: 47%; p=0.001). IXE had greater response versus ADA in additional PsA, skin, nail, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 8.5% (ADA) and 3.5% (IXE) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: IXE was superior to ADA in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (ACR50 and PASI100) in patients with PsA and inadequate response to csDMARDs. Safety and tolerability for both biologicals were aligned with established safety profiles.

Treatment persistence and changes in fracture risk, back pain, and quality of life amongst patients treated with teriparatide in routine clinical care in France: results from the European Forsteo Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: The European Forsteo Observational Study assessed the clinical fracture incidence, back pain, quality of life (QoL), and treatment persistence amongst post-menopausal women, who were prescribed teriparatide in routine care in eight European countries. We present the results for France, with health-insurance reimbursement criteria channel teriparatide to women with severe disease and limit treatment to 18 months. METHODS: A representative sample of women initiating teriparatide in France was followed in routine care for 36 months. We described patients' characteristics at baseline and persistence to teriparatide (Kaplan-Meier analysis), fracture incidence, back pain, and QoL (EQ-5D) at baseline, 18 and 36 months follow-up (last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) and mixed-models-for-repeated-measures (MMRM). RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen rheumatologists included 309 patients, of whom 290 (93.9%) had at least one follow-up visit. Women's mean age (standard deviation) was 74.5 years (7.4) and 296 (95.8%) had greater or equal to two vertebral fractures prior to teriparatide initiation. Clinical fracture incidence, mainly vertebral fractures, decreased around 6 months after teriparatide initiation, and was sustained at 36 months (P=0.013) when most patients were treated by anti-resorptives. Back pain and EQ-5D measures improved significantly at 18 and 36 months (P<0.0001) in the LOCF analyses but did not improve in the EQ-5D VAS measure after covariate adjustment in the MMRM model. Median treatment duration was 17.4 months. CONCLUSION: French women initiating teriparatide in routine care had severe osteoporosis and showed good treatment persistence, consistent with France's insurance reimbursement criteria. Improvements in fracture risk and back pain began soon after treatment and was maintained at 36 months follow-up.

Efficiency of bone density testing by dual-biphotonic X-rays absorptiometry for diagnosis of osteoporosis according to French guideline recommendations: the PRESAGE study.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Bone mineral density is a major risk factor of fracture. Its measurement is reimbursed by French national health insurance according to clinical criteria. In this multicentre cross-sectional observational study, we estimated the proportion of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis among those referred for a bone mineral density measurement. Risk factors for osteoporosis and therapeutic recommendations were described. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-six postmenopausal women were evaluated. Osteoporosis was diagnosed in 57.6%, osteopenia in 38.7% and a normal bone mineral density in 3.7%. The main risk factors for fracture were personal history of fracture (40%), family fracture (23%), smoking (15%) and glucocorticoids use (15%). Anti-osteoporosis drug was recommended for 93% of women with osteoporosis and for 45% of women with osteopenia. A logistic regression analysis showed that a T-score=-2.5 was the most important factor related to the treatment decision-making. Cluster analysis identified five types of women with different combinations of fracture risk factors. The percentage of postmenopausal women -96.3% - referred for bone mineral density and for whom a treatment could be recommended had osteoporosis or osteopenia. CONCLUSION: In spite of recommendations, the physician therapeutic decision-making was mainly based on the bone mineral density result.

Comparing raloxifene with continuous combined estrogen-progestin therapy in postmenopausal women: Review of Euralox 1.

OBJECTIVES: To review the main findings of the Euralox 1 study - a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study conducted in 1008 healthy postmenopausal women allocated to raloxifene (n = 495) or continuous combined estrogen-progestin therapy (ccEPT; n = 513) for 6 months -- and provide an overview of the risks and benefits of raloxifene and ccEPT. METHODS: A review is provided of previously published findings on uterine safety (bleeding rates and changes in endometrial thickness and uterine volume), gynaecological adjudication, cardiovascular risk (lipids, fibrinogen), adverse events, compliance, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. New data on biochemical markers of bone turnover (serum N-telopeptides and C-terminal telopeptides of type I collagen; NTX and CTX) assessed before and after 6 months' treatment are presented. RESULTS: Raloxifene caused less uterine bleeding than ccEPT and, unlike ccEPT, did not alter endometrial thickness or uterine volume. Serum CTX and NTX levels were reduced in both treatment groups, but the reduction was significantly greater with ccEPT. The two treatments had differential effects on lipids and fibrinogen levels; raloxifene had more favourable effects on serum HDL, the LDL/HDL ratio, and plasma fibrinogen. Raloxifene was associated with fewer adverse events or discontinuations, and this was associated with higher treatment satisfaction and better self-reported compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical risk-benefit profile of raloxifene derived from the intermediate endpoints of this study suggests that it may be a better alternative to ccEPT for preventing long-term postmenopausal health risks in healthy postmenopausal women who are not suffering from vasomotor symptoms.