Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial.

Objective: To provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods: ORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores. Results: Substantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points. Conclusion: Treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning. Trial registration number: NCT02187055.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease affecting an estimated 1.5 million patients in the US. The condition is associated with a substantial health and economic burden. An economic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib (a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor) versus biologic therapies commonly prescribed in the US for the treatment of RA. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed whereby sequences of treatments were evaluated. Response to treatment was modeled by HAQ change, and informed by a network meta-analysis. Mortality, resource use and quality of life were captured in the model using published regression analyses based on HAQ score. Treatment discontinuation was linked to response to treatment and to adverse events. Patients were modeled as having had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), or to a first biologic therapy (TNFi-IR). RESULTS: The tofacitinib strategy was associated with cost savings compared with alternative treatment sequences across all modeled scenarios (i.e. in both the MTX-IR and TNFi-IR scenarios), with lifetime cost savings per patient ranging from $65,205 to $93,959 (2015 costs). Cost savings arose due to improved functioning and the resulting savings in healthcare expenditure, and lower drug and administration costs. The tofacitinib strategies all resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with additional QALYs per patient ranging from 0.01 to 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib as a second-line therapy following methotrexate failure and as a third-line therapy following a biologic failure produces lower costs and improved quality of life compared with the current pathway of care.

Estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss among rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing tofacitinib treatment: post hoc analyses of two randomized clinical trials.

Objectives: RA causes high disability levels and reduces health-related quality of life, triggering increased costs and risk of unemployment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. These post hoc analyses of phase 3 data aimed to assess monthly medical expenditure (MME) and risk of job loss for tofacitinib treatment vs placebo. Methods: Data analysed were from two randomized phase 3 studies of RA patients (n = 1115) with inadequate response to MTX or TNF inhibitors (TNFi) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab (one study only) or placebo, in combination with MTX. Short Form 36 version 2 Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores were translated into predicted MME via an algorithm and concurrent inability to work and job loss risks at 6, 12 and 24 months, using Medical Outcomes Study data. Results: MME reduction by month 3 was $100 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated TNFi inadequate responders (P < 0.001); >20 and 6% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾16%, and risk of future job loss decreased ∼20% (P < 0.001 vs placebo). MME reduction by month 3 was $70 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated MTX inadequate responders (P < 0.001); ⩾23 and 13% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾31% and risk of future job loss decreased ⩾25% (P < 0.001 vs placebo). Conclusion: Tofacitinib treatment had a positive impact on estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss for RA patients with inadequate response to MTX or TNFi.

Tofacitinib in Combination With Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or placebo in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: In a 12-month, phase III randomized controlled trial (ORAL Sync), patients (n = 795) with active RA and previous inadequate response to therapy with ≥1 conventional or biologic DMARD were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID, placebo advanced to 5 mg BID, or placebo to 10 mg BID, in combination with stable background DMARD therapy. PROs included patient global assessment of arthritis (PtGA), patient assessment of arthritis pain (Pain), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index [HAQ DI]), health-related quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey [SF-36]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F]), and sleep (Medical Outcomes Study Sleep [MOS Sleep]). RESULTS: At month 3, statistically significant improvements from baseline versus placebo were reported in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, all 8 SF-36 domains, FACIT-F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and in PtGA, Pain, HAQ DI, 7 SF-36 domains, FACIT-F, and MOS Sleep with tofacitinib 5 mg BID. Improvements were sustained to month 12. Significantly more tofacitinib-treated patients reported improvements of greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences at month 3 versus placebo in all PROs, except the SF-36 role-emotional domain (significant for tofacitinib 10 mg BID). CONCLUSION: Patients with active RA treated with tofacitinib combined with background conventional DMARD therapy reported sustained, significant, and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo.

Tofacitinib Versus Biologic Treatments in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Results From a Network Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis compared the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with RA and a prior inadequate response (IR) to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 5 randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated tofacitinib or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) against placebo in patient populations with RA with a prior IR to TNFi. The definition of TNFi-IR varied across studies, and included patients with an IR or who had failed treatment with TNFi for any reason. A network meta-analysis was conducted comparing study data with regard to American College of Rheumatology response rates and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index improvement at weeks 12 and 24, rates of treatment withdrawal due to all causes; adverse events (AEs) and lack of efficacy; and rates of AEs, serious AEs, and serious infections. FINDINGS: The 5 trials included a total of 2136 patients. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily combined with methotrexate was found to have relative risk estimates of American College of Rheumatology responses and change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score comparable with abatacept, golimumab, rituximab, and tocilizumab combined with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Withdrawal rates from trials due to all causes and AEs were comparable between treatments, and tofacitinib had a lower rate of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. Rates of AEs and HAQ-DI were comparable between tofacitinib, other active treatments, and placebo. No serious infections were reported with tofacitinib during the placebo-controlled period (up to week 12) in this study population; rates of serious infection with other active treatments were generally low and similar to placebo. IMPLICATIONS: During a 24-week period, tofacitinib had efficacy and rates of AEs comparable with currently available bDMARDs in the treatment of patients with RA who had a prior IR to TNFi. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: ORAL Step, NCT00960440; ATTAIN, NCT00124982; GO-AFTER, NCT00299546; RADIATE, NCT00106522; REFLEX, NCT00462345.

Meta-analysis of long-term joint structural deterioration in minimally treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation and joint structural deterioration. Driven by recent expectations that patients in clinical trials randomized to placebo should be 'rescued' with active therapy within 6 months of starting treatment, the relative benefit of arresting joint damage with biologic agents beyond this period is unclear. With longer-term evidence of the rate of joint deterioration with minimal treatment, the efficacy of biologic agents and novel treatments might be projected beyond the placebo-controlled phase observed in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to estimate radiographic structural deterioration over time in patients with moderate-to-severe RA minimally treated with DMARDs. METHODS: A literature review identified evidence of joint structural deterioration in patients with (DMARD-IR population) and without (non-DMARD-IR population) a history of inadequate response to DMARDs. Patients were minimally treated with one non-biologic DMARD or palliative care (non-DMARD-IR population only). Outcomes of interest were the (modified) Total Sharp Score (TSS) and subscales (Erosion Subscore [ES] and Joint Space Narrowing [JSN] Subscore), and Larsen score. Pooled joint-deterioration curves over time were obtained with meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Mean change from baseline in TSS increased in the DMARD-IR population from 1.14 (95 % credible interval [CrI] 0.66, 1.67) to 9.84 (5.68, 14.46) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively, and a non-linear increase of 1.56 (0.79, 2.34) and 5.13 (-1.35, 11.67) in the non-DMARD-IR population. At the same time points, mean changes (95 % CrI) were 0.51 (0.27, 0.83) and 4.43 (2.38, 7.21) for ES and 0.36 (0.09, 0.67) and 3.14 (0.80, 5.78) for JSN in the DMARD-IR population, whereas corresponding changes in the non-DMARD-IR population were 0.69 (0.31, 1.12) and 2.93 (0.92, 5.02), and 0.29 (0.17, 0.44) and 2.55 (1.45, 3.80), respectively. Larsen scores were only available for the non-DMARD-IR population, with mean changes (95 % CrI) of 0.08 (0.04, 0.11) and 0.65 (0.36, 0.96) at Weeks 12 and 104, respectively. CONCLUSION: Minimal treatment of RA with one non-biologic DMARD results in deterioration of joint structure in patients with or without a history of inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs.

Effects of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of two Phase 2 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we investigated the effects of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with active RA. METHODS: Two, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b studies were performed. The combination study evaluated patients with inadequate response to methotrexate who received tofacitinib 1-15 mg twice daily (BID), 20 mg once daily or placebo, on background methotrexate. In the monotherapy study, patients with inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs received tofacitinib 1-15 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg once every other week or placebo. PROs measured were: Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (PAAP), Patient's Assessment of Disease Activity, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F and SF-36. RESULTS: In the combination study (n=507), significant improvements (p<0.05) versus placebo were observed at Week 12 in PAAP (visual analogue scale) and HAQ-DI for all tofacitinib groups. In the monotherapy study (n=384), significant improvements in PAAP were observed at Week 12 for tofacitinib 5, 10 and 15 mg BID, and in HAQ-DI for tofacitinib 3, 5, 10 and 15 mg BID. Significant improvements versus placebo were seen at Week 2 in PAAP (both studies) and HAQ­DI (monotherapy study) with tofacitinib, and were maintained throughout each study. In both studies, improvements in several domains of the SF-36 in the tofacitinib groups were observed at Weeks 12 and 24. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active RA, tofacitinib, either in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy, demonstrated rapid and sustained improvement in pain, physical functioning and health-related quality of life.

Tofacitinib with methotrexate in third-line treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from a phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in a 6-month, phase III, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Patients ages ≥18 years with active RA with an inadequate response to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and receiving stable background methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. PROs measured at month 3 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; acute), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and MOS Sleep Scale. RESULTS: Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 133) or 10 mg (n = 134) or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 66) or 10 mg (n = 66). HAQ DI (reported previously), PtGA (P < 0.0001), and SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary (P < 0.05) scores were improved for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Furthermore, improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference were more frequently reported by tofacitinib-treated patients versus placebo for PtGA (P < 0.05), pain (P < 0.0001), HAQ DI (P < 0.05), SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary scores (P < 0.05), and FACIT-F (P < 0.001 for 5 mg twice daily). No statistical differences were observed in the MOS Sleep Scale. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib treatment resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs versus placebo over 3 months of treatment in patients with active RA and a previous inadequate response to TNFi.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the most frequently used first-line antirheumatic drug. We report the findings of a phase 3 study of monotherapy with tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as compared with methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate. METHODS: We randomly assigned 958 patients to receive 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily or methotrexate at a dose that was incrementally increased to 20 mg per week over 8 weeks; 956 patients received a study drug. The coprimary end points at month 6 were the mean change from baseline in the van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (which ranges from 0 to 448, with higher scores indicating greater structural joint damage) and the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response (≥70% reduction in the number of both tender and swollen joints and ≥70% improvement in three of five other criteria: the patient's assessment of pain, level of disability, C-reactive protein level or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, global assessment of disease by the patient, and global assessment of disease by the physician). RESULTS: Mean changes in the modified total Sharp score from baseline to month 6 were significantly smaller in the tofacitinib groups than in the methotrexate group, but changes were modest in all three groups (0.2 points in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and <0.1 point in the 10-mg tofacitinib group, as compared with 0.8 points in the methotrexate group [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). Among the patients receiving tofacitinib, 25.5% in the 5-mg group and 37.7% in the 10-mg group had an ACR 70 response at month 6, as compared with 12.0% of patients in the methotrexate group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Herpes zoster developed in 31 of 770 patients who received tofacitinib (4.0%) and in 2 of 186 patients who received methotrexate (1.1%). Confirmed cases of cancer (including three cases of lymphoma) developed in 5 patients who received tofacitinib and in 1 patient who received methotrexate. Tofacitinib was associated with increases in creatinine levels and in low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate, tofacitinib monotherapy was superior to methotrexate in reducing signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage. The benefits of tofacitinib need to be considered in the context of the risks of adverse events. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Start ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01039688.).

Measuring the effect of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials from the patient's perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Health measurements used to evaluate the effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies often fail to reflect patients' priorities, despite recommendations towards more patient-centered assessments. The goals of the current review are: (1) to present guidelines, tools, and required steps for successful implementation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in RA clinical trials; and (2) to identify gaps between recommendations and current practices. METHODS: The first objective was addressed by reviewing existing frameworks for assessment of health-related quality of life among patients with RA and guidelines on the evaluation of PRO instruments, with a focus on evidence required to demonstrate the adequacy of PRO-based labeling claims. The second goal was addressed by conducting an empirical investigation of the overlap between patients' perspectives and current practices regarding PROs in RA studies, elaborated from systematic literature searches. The first search identified qualitative studies that reported direct input from patients with RA, while the second identified the main health outcomes measured in RA trials, with a focus on biologic therapy. RESULTS: Our review revealed a set of outcomes that have thus far not been widely used to assess treatment benefit in RA, despite evidence of their importance to patients. The psychometric properties of PRO instruments used to evaluate commonly assessed domains are presented, as are recommendations for PRO tools that assess domains less often measured in RA studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the validity of some PRO tools among patients with RA is well established, further work needs to be done in several health domains which have traditionally received insufficient attention.

Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 6-month study, 611 patients were randomly assigned, in a 4:4:1:1 ratio, to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, placebo for 3 months followed by 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, or placebo for 3 months followed by 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily. The primary end points, assessed at month 3, were the percentage of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores (which range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability), and the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating more disease activity). RESULTS: At month 3, a higher percentage of patients in the tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups met the criteria for an ACR 20 response (59.8% in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 65.7% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group vs. 26.7% in the combined placebo groups, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The reductions from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were greater in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups (-0.50 and -0.57 points, respectively, vs. -0.19 points; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) of less than 2.6 was not significantly higher with tofacitinib than with placebo (5.6% and 8.7% in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups, respectively, and 4.4% with placebo; P=0.62 and P=0.10 for the two comparisons). Serious infections developed in six patients who were receiving tofacitinib. Common adverse events were headache and upper respiratory tract infection. Tofacitinib treatment was associated with elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib monotherapy was associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and improvement in physical function. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Solo ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00814307.).

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this 12-month, phase 3 trial, 717 patients who were receiving stable doses of methotrexate were randomly assigned to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 40 mg of adalimumab once every 2 weeks, or placebo. At month 3, patients in the placebo group who did not have a 20% reduction from baseline in the number of swollen and tender joints were switched in a blinded fashion to either 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily; at month 6, all patients still receiving placebo were switched to tofacitinib in a blinded fashion. The three primary outcome measures were a 20% improvement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to month 3 in the score on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (which ranges from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability); and the percentage of patients at month 6 who had a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating greater disease activity). RESULTS: At month 6, ACR 20 response rates were higher among patients receiving 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib (51.5% and 52.6%, respectively) and among those receiving adalimumab (47.2%) than among those receiving placebo (28.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There were also greater reductions in the HAQ-DI score at month 3 and higher percentages of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) below 2.6 at month 6 in the active-treatment groups than in the placebo group. Adverse events occurred more frequently with tofacitinib than with placebo, and pulmonary tuberculosis developed in two patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group. Tofacitinib was associated with an increase in both low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and with reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate, tofacitinib was significantly superior to placebo and was numerically similar to adalimumab in efficacy. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Standard ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853385.).

Evaluating the efficacy of sequential biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: The long-term treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) most often involves a sequence of different therapies. The response to therapy, disease progression and detailed knowledge of the role of different therapies along treatment pathways are key aspects to help physicians identify the best treatment strategy. Thus, understanding the effectiveness of different therapeutic sequences is of particular importance in the evaluation of long-term RA treatment strategies. The objective of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively evaluate the relationship between the clinical response to biologic treatments and the number of previous treatments with tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken to identify published, peer-reviewed articles that reported clinical outcomes of biologic treatment among RA patients with an inadequate response to TNF-α inhibitors. Data were systematically abstracted. Efficacy rates were estimated for groups of patients who differed in the number of prior TNF-α inhibitors used. End points included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)- and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-based response criteria. RESULTS: The literature search identified 41 publications, of which 28 reported biologic treatment outcomes for RA patients with prior exposure to TNF-α inhibitors. Seven publications reported outcomes obtained in randomized clinical trials, while the remaining consisted of observational studies. The likelihood of responding to a subsequent biologic treatment decreased as the number of previous treatments with TNF-α inhibitors increased for six of the seven response criteria examined. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with prior exposure to TNF-α inhibitors, the likelihood of response to subsequent treatment with biologic agents declines with the increasing number of previous treatments with TNF-α inhibitors.

A novel approach to estimate the minimally important difference for the Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients.

PURPOSE: The Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) has been used extensively to assess the impact of fatigue on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective of this study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) of the FIS to facilitate the interpretation of the scale in patients with MS. METHODS: Data came from a cross-sectional study of 184 patients with MS. Anchor-based estimates of the MID were evaluated using patients' ratings of their own health and a clinical rating of MS severity. Using the proportional odds model, estimates of the MID were evaluated by finding FIS score differences that corresponded to a 50% increase in the odds of poorer health. Convergence between distribution- and anchor-based estimates was assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen items met the selection criteria for anchors. Triangulation of the anchor- and distribution-based approaches indicated that the MID of the FIS ranged between 10 and 20 points, approximately. CONCLUSION: A common metric of meaningful difference of FIS was defined across anchors measuring a broad range of HRQOL domains. The MID estimates in the current study can be used for sample size calculation in the planning of future studies and to aid researchers and clinicians in interpreting FIS score differences in patients with MS.

Interpreting Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey scores using outcomes in health-related quality of life and sexual drive impact.

OBJECTIVE: To link the Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey (PMSIS) scores to health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and sexual drive impact associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). STUDY DESIGN: Secondary data analysis was performed using the online survey study for PMSIS development. Women were sorted into 10 mutually exclusive score levels (N = 949). Their responses to the SF-12v2 Health Survey and the sexual drive question were dichotomized to indicate the presence of limitations/impairment. Chi-square analysis was conducted to compare the differences in percentages of women with limitations across 3 representative PMSIS score levels containing (1) women with no indication of PMS, (2) women at risk for PMS but not PMDD, and (3) women at risk for PMDD. RESULTS: The higher the PMSIS score level (more severe impact), the greater the percentage of women reported functional limitations. Women either at risk for PMS or PMDD were significantly more likely to report limitations than women with no indication of PMS in all HRQOL areas except for 2 Physical Functioning items and 1 Mental Health item and the General Health item. Significantly more women with PMS (67.5%) and with PMDD (73.3%) reported sexual drive impact than in women with no PMS (45.7%). CONCLUSION: The associations between PMSIS score levels and the premenstrual symptoms' impact on HRQOL and sexual functioning assist the interpretation of PMSIS scores and use of the tool in reproductive-age women.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is reported to affect between 13% and 31% of women. Between 3% and 8% of women are reported to meet criteria for the more severe form of PMS, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Although PMDD has received increased attention in recent years, the cost effectiveness of treatments for PMDD remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the four medications with a US FDA-approved indication for PMDD: fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine and drospirenone plus ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to evaluate both direct costs (medication and physician visits) and clinical outcomes (treatment success, failure and discontinuation). Medication costs were based on average wholesale prices of branded products; physician visit costs were obtained from a claims database study of PMDD patients and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical outcome probabilities were derived from published clinical trials in PMDD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using the difference in costs and percentage of successfully treated patients at 6 months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of uncertainty in parameter estimates. Threshold values where a change in the cost-effective strategy occurred were identified using a net benefit framework. RESULTS: Starting therapy with DRSP/EE dominated both sertraline and paroxetine, but not fluoxetine. The estimated ICER of initiating treatment with fluoxetine relative to DRSP/EE was $US4385 per treatment success (year 2007 values). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves revealed that for ceiling ratios>or=$US3450 per treatment success, fluoxetine had the highest probability (>or=0.37) of being the most cost-effective treatment, relative to the other options. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier further indicated that DRSP/EE remained the option with the highest expected net monetary benefit for ceiling values

Interpreting score differences in the Insomnia Severity Index: using health-related outcomes to define the minimally important difference.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) by examining the association of score differences of the ISI with health-related outcomes including health-related quality of life, productivity, and fatigue. METHODS: Data came from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the long-term efficacy of eszopiclone for primary insomnia (N = 828). Logistic regression models were used to characterize the relationship between ISI change scores (from baseline to 6 months post-treatment) and outcomes/anchors from the SF-36 Health Survey, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Odds ratios were derived from the regression coefficients to calculate the probability of a given outcome being associated with different ISI change scores. Convergence between anchor- and distribution-based estimates was assessed. RESULTS: Higher ISI scores (indicating more severe insomnia) were significantly associated with higher probabilities of negative outcome in all models. Individuals with a 6-point score reduction in ISI scores (which corresponded to 1(1/2) standard deviations) were 48% less likely to report 'feeling worn out' (SF-36) at 6 months, 46% less likely to be 'unable to think clearly' (WLQ), and 52% less likely to report 'feeling fatigued' (FSS). Similar results were found across a broad spectrum of all selected anchors. CONCLUSIONS: Based on results of the study, a 6-point reduction is recommended to represent a clinically meaningful improvement in individuals with primary insomnia. Research on generalizability of the recommended MID in this study to other patient populations and other type of treatment interventions is needed.

Assessing barriers to change in drinking behavior: results of an online employee screening program.

BACKGROUND: The impact of alcohol abuse on worker productivity is considerable and appears to be increasing over time. Although early screening and intervention may help prevent or reduce the damaging health and productivity effects of problem drinking, barriers to behavioral change may render broad-based prevention efforts ineffectual. This study examined the correlates of two potential barriers to changes in drinking behavior--underestimation of drinking and lack of knowledge of helping resources--using data from web-based employee alcohol screenings. METHODS: Anonymous screening data from 1185 employees of ten companies participating in the 2003 National Alcohol Screening Day were analyzed. The AUDIT, a 10-item screening instrument developed by the World Health Organization, was used to measure drinking behavior; employees' subjective assessments of their drinking were also obtained. RESULTS: Over 53% of participants subjectively underestimated their drinking relative to their AUDIT results, and 58% of respondents did not know whether their medical insurance included benefits for alcohol treatment. Logistic regression analysis revealed that younger and male respondents tended to have the highest AUDIT scores and also (along with married respondents) were most likely to underestimate their drinking. Younger, unmarried respondents were least likely to be aware of their alcohol treatment insurance benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Current corporate efforts to curtail problem drinking among employees may not adequately address barriers to change. Targeting at-risk employee groups for alcohol screening and dissemination of information about health insurance benefits and treatment options is recommended, as is providing personalized feedback based on screening results to raise awareness of at-risk drinking and available helping resources.

Development and validation of the Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey (PMSIS): a disease-specific quality of life assessment tool.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Premenstrual Symptoms Impact Survey (PMSIS), a brief web-based instrument for evaluating the impact of premenstrual symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: An item bank of 68 questions was administered to a nationally representative sample of 971 women using the web, aged 18-45, who experienced regular menstrual cycles in the past 3 months, were not currently pregnant or breastfeeding, and were not being treated or taking medications for depression-related disorders in the last 2 years. Item reduction was performed using forward stepwise linear regression of an overall symptom severity score onto item scores. Three standards were used to validate the instrument: (1) the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists retrospective diagnostic criteria for identifying participants "at risk" for clinically significant premenstrual syndrome (PMS), (2) the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders retrospective diagnostic criteria for identifying participants at risk for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), and (3) the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey. RESULTS: Six items met entry criteria in the model. Approximately 6.0% of the participants were identified as being at risk for PMDD, and 17.3% were identified as being at risk for clinically significant PMS. PMSIS scale score differed significantly between participants who were and were not at risk for PMDD/clinically significant PMS. PMSIS scale score also differed significantly between participants having either high, average, or low HRQOL as defined by SF-12 physical and mental component summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the PMSIS has excellent discriminative ability to detect differences in groups that are known to differ in terms of clinical criteria. The PMSIS can be used to educate consumers about the impact of their symptoms on QOL.

Results of National Alcohol Screening Day: college demographics, clinical characteristics, and comparison with online screening.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy of the 2002 college-based National Alcohol Screening Day (NASD) by determining: (1) the demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants that were screened and (2) the degree to which those scoring at hazardous drinking levels received clinical intervention or were referred for further assessment or treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Of 45,368 participants, 23,334 were screened and 14,598 received some form of clinical intervention, defined as advice or referral. METHODS: The authors conducted nonparametric and univariate analyses to test for statistical differences in demographics, clinical-characteristics, and interventions-as a function of-screening mode. RESULTS: Nearly 34% of those screened in person had an AUDIT score of 8 or higher, indicating harmful or hazardous drinking. Of these, only 10% had ever undergone alcohol treatment. More than 58% of those screened online scored 8 or higher, and of this group, fewer than 6% had ever undergone alcohol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the in-person event and the online interactive program associated with NASD are serving markedly different populations, particularly with regard to clinical indicators.