Patient perceptions and preferences of biologic therapies in SLE.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient perceptions of biologic therapies from a large, population-based cohort of patients with SLE with significant numbers of blacks and whites and across the full spectrum of socioeconomic strata and disease severity. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of validated patients with SLE enrolled in the Georgians Organized Against Lupus Cohort between September 2014 and August 2015. The survey instrument was developed ad hoc by the authors and contained an introduction on biologics. RESULTS: A total of 676 participants were on average 48.4 years old with 15.9 years of disease; 93.2% were female and 80.6% were black; 34.2% had private health insurance and 9.8% had no insurance; and 26.8% and 27.5% had Medicare or Medicaid, respectively. Of all respondents, 30.8% had heard of biologics, with a significant difference between blacks and whites (25.2% vs 53.4%, respectively). There were no significant differences, however, between blacks and whites with respect to ever having been on biologics (7.6% and 11.5%, respectively) or where they got their information about biologics. Out of 202 individuals who had heard of biologics, 102 (51.3%) were familiar with potential benefits or side effects, and most (n=129, 66.5%) had a neutral perception to risks associated with biologic use. There was no perception of biologics working differently between races/ethnicities. More (n=76, 62.8%) blacks preferred intravenous over subcutaneous modalities compared with whites (n=12, 37.5%) but were not as willing to pay as much out of pocket for it. Individuals with Medicare were significantly more likely to have been on biologics. CONCLUSIONS: There are important similarities and differences between blacks and whites with lupus with respect to their perceptions of biologic therapies and their impact. There are opportunities to increase patient exposure to information about biologics and improve their understanding in order for them to make the best informed decision possible.

Clinical response beyond the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index: post-hoc analysis of the BLISS-SC study.

OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI), developed as a primary outcome measure for use in clinical trials, captures improvement in SLE disease activity without concomitant worsening in disease manifestations. This study investigated the relationships between the SRI and clinical/laboratory correlates of SRI response in patients with SLE. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous BeLimumab in Subjects with Systemic lupus erythematosus - SubCutaneous (BLISS-SC). Patients were randomised to weekly belimumab 200 mg subcutaneously or placebo, plus standard SLE therapy. Changes from baseline to week 52 in clinical and laboratory parameters were compared among SRI responders and non-responders, irrespective of the treatment received. RESULTS: SRI responders (n=475) had significantly better (p<0.0001) outcomes compared with non-responders (n=358), including (by definition) higher proportions achieving ≥4-point improvement in Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-SLE Disease Activity Index (100.0% vs 2.0%), no worsening in British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG; 0 new BILAG A or ≤1 new BILAG B score; 100.0 % vs 50.3%) and no worsening (<0.3-point increase) in Physician's Global Assessment score (100.0% vs 49.7%). Among patients receiving >7.5 mg/day corticosteroids at baseline, significantly more SRI responders had reductions in prednisone dose to ≤7.5 mg/day than non-responders. SRI responders reported lower flare rates and improvements in serological markers and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score than non-responders. CONCLUSION: SRI response is associated with improvements in clinical and laboratory measures, strengthening its value as a clinically meaningful primary endpoint in clinical trials.

Ranitidine (Zantac) syrup versus Ranitidine effervescent tablets (Zantac) EFFERdose) in children: a single-center taste preference study.

BACKGROUND: The histamine H(2) receptor antagonist ranitidine is US FDA-approved for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease and healing of erosive esophagitis in children >or=1 month of age. A low-dose strength of ranitidine is now available in a citrus-flavored 25 mg effervescent tablet (dissolved in 5 mL of water); this formulation was developed to facilitate use in infants and smaller children. Ranitidine syrup is available in a peppermint-flavored 15 mg/mL formulation. OBJECTIVE: To compare taste preferences for ranitidine (Zantac) syrup and ranitidine effervescent tablets dissolved in water (Zantac EFFERdose) in healthy children aged 4-8 years and their adult caregivers. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, single-blind, crossover, taste test trial was conducted in 102 children and 102 parents/legal guardians. All subjects received a single 45 mg dose of each formulation. After tasting both preparations children were asked: "Now that you have tasted both medicines, which one of these medicines do you think tastes better?" Adults were asked four questions to assess whether they would administer the medication to the children. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent (72/102) of the children preferred the taste of the ranitidine effervescent tablets compared with 29% (30/102) who preferred the syrup (p < 0.001). The majority of adults (71%) responded that they would prefer to administer the effervescent formulation based on taste. Adverse events consistent with product labeling were mild and were reported in four children and three adults: headache (n = 3), drowsiness (n = 1), abdominal pain/cramps (n = 2), and bloating/gas (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The taste of the ranitidine effervescent formulation dissolved in water is preferred over the ranitidine syrup. Better taste acceptance may facilitate ease of administration and compliance in pediatric patients.

Abacavir, efavirenz, didanosine, with or without hydroxyurea, in HIV-infected adults failing initial nucleoside/protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea (HU) is an immunomodulatory agent that has been documented to enhance the antiretroviral activity of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, such as abacavir (ABC) and didanosine (ddI), and would be expected to improve virologic efficacy. METHODS: A 48-week, phase IV, multicenter, open-label, proof-of-concept clinical trial was conducted to evaluate second-line, protease inhibitor (PI)-sparing therapy with ABC/efavirenz (EFV)/ddI plus HU or without HU in HIV-infected subjects failing to achieve HIV-1 RNA < or = 400 copies/mL after > or = 16 weeks of treatment with lamivudine/zidovudine or lamivudine/stavudine, plus 1 or 2 PIs. Subjects were assigned to ABC (300 mg twice daily)/ EFV (600 mg once daily)/ ddI (400 mg once daily) plus HU (500 mg twice daily) (n = 30) or this regimen without HU (n = 24). RESULTS: Baseline mean HIV-1 RNA was 3.86 log10 copies/mL and CD4+ cell count was 345 cells/mm3. A similar percentage of subjects in the non-HU arm (58%) and HU arm (53%) completed the study. Intent-to-treat: missing = failure analysis showed no differences in proportions of subjects in the non-HU and HU arms achieving undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at week 24 (< 400 copies/mL: 58% [14/24] vs 57% [17/30], P = 0.899; < 50 copies/mL (50% [12/24] vs 47% [14/30], P = 0.780). Median change from baseline in CD4+ cell count in the non-HU and HU arms at week 48 was +114 cells/mm3 and -63 cells/mm3 (P = 0.007), respectively. Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although more subjects in the HU arm withdrew prematurely from the study due to adverse events (23% vs 4%). Four cases of possible ABC-related hypersensitivity were observed. CONCLUSION: ABC/EFV/ddI was an effective and well-tolerated second-line regimen for nucleoside/PI-experienced HIV-infected subjects. The addition of HU blunted the CD4+ cell response, did not appear to enhance antiviral activity, and resulted in more treatment-limiting adverse events.