Wearable activity tracker study exploring rheumatoid arthritis patients' disease activity using patient-reported outcome measures, clinical measures, and biometric sensor data (the wear study).

Background: Digital health studies using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), wearables, and clinical data to provide a more comprehensive picture of patient health. Methods: Newly initiated patients on upadacitinib or adalimumab for RA will be recruited from community settings in the Excellence NEtwork in RheumatoloGY (ENRGY) practice-based research network. Over the period of three to six months, three streams of data will be collected (1) linkable physician-derived data; (2) self-reported daily and weekly ePROs through the ArthritisPower registry app; and (3) biometric sensor data passively collected via wearable. These data will be analyzed to evaluate correlations among the three types of data and patient improvement on the newly initiated medication. Conclusions: Results from this study will provide valuable information regarding the relationships between physician data, wearable data, and ePROs in patients newly initiating an RA treatment, and demonstrate the feasibility of digital data capture for Remote Patient Monitoring of patients with rheumatic disease.

Real-World Use and Effectiveness Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Upadacitinib: An Analysis from the CorEvitas Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Data assessing longer-term real-world effectiveness and treatment patterns with upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are lacking. We assessed improvement in clinical and patient-reported outcomes and treatment patterns for up to 12 months among adult patients with RA initiating UPA. METHODS: Data were collected from the CorEvitas® RA Registry (08/2019-04/2022). Eligible patients had moderate to severe RA (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] > 10) and follow-up visits at 6 or 12 months after UPA initiation. Outcomes were mean change from baseline, percentage achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and disease activity at follow-up. We evaluated clinical outcomes and therapy changes among patients with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience and among those receiving UPA as first-line therapy, as well as those receiving UPA as monotherapy versus as part of combination therapy. We further evaluated whether outcomes were similar among those that remained on therapy. RESULTS: Patients treated with UPA (6-month cohort, N = 469; 12-month cohort, N = 263) had statistically significant improvements (p < 0.001) in mean CDAI, tender/swollen joint counts, pain, and fatigue at follow-up. At 12 months, 46.0% achieved MCID in CDAI and 40.0% achieved low disease activity/remission. Overall, 43.0% discontinued UPA at 12 months; of those receiving combination treatment (N = 90) with conventional therapies and UPA, 42.2% (N = 38) discontinued conventional therapy. Findings were similar in the 6-month cohort and among subgroups. Changes from baseline and proportions of patients achieving MCID or clinical outcomes tended to be numerically lower among patients with TNFi experience and numerically higher among those receiving UPA as first-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: UPA initiation was associated with improvements in clinical and patient-reported outcomes, with meaningful clinical improvements regardless of prior TNFi experience, line of therapy, or concomitant use of conventional therapies. Further research is needed to better understand sustained response of UPA over longer treatment periods.

Real-World Treatment and Care Patterns in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating First-Line Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend targeting low disease activity or remission and switching therapies for patients not reaching those targets. We evaluated real-world use of disease activity measures, treatment discontinuation, and switching patterns among patients with RA initiating a first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS: Data from adult patients with RA initiating a first-line TNFi were collected from the American Rheumatology Network (January 2014-August 2021). The proportion of patients with recorded disease activity scores (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 [RAPID3]) at TNFi initiation was assessed. Among patients with moderate or severe RA at TNFi initiation, reasons for discontinuation and subsequent advanced therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Among TNFi initiators (n = 15,182), 44.8% recorded a CDAI/RAPID3 score at treatment initiation; of those who did not, 47.0% had recorded a tender and/or swollen joint count or pain score. Among patients with moderate or severe RA (n = 1,651), 52% discontinued their initial TNFi during follow-up, of which 15%, 46%, 28%, and 12% initiated the same TNFi, another TNFi, a non-TNFi biologic, or a Janus kinase inhibitor, respectively. The proportion of patients restarting the same TNFi or initiating another TNFi varied according to TNFi discontinuation reason. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, over half of patients with RA initiating a first-line TNFi did not have baseline disease activity assessments. Many patients cycled through TNFi despite citing lack of efficacy as the most common reason for discontinuation. Consistent, objective monitoring of treatment response and timely switch to effective therapy is needed in patients with RA.

A Real-World Effectiveness Study Using a Mobile Application to Evaluate Early Outcomes with Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of upadacitinib on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) symptoms was evaluated during the first 12 weeks of treatment via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using a mobile health application (app). METHODS: Participating rheumatologists from the CorEvitas RA Registry (prospective, observational cohort) recruited patients with RA initiating upadacitinib treatment. A modified version of the ArthritisPower® app was used to collect PROs, including the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), duration of morning joint stiffness, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue 7a Short Form at baseline and weeks 1-4, 8, and 12. RAPID3 responses over time were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimation to determine the proportion of patients achieving disease activity improvement and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results were analyzed for all patients initiating upadacitinib and a subsample of TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients with moderate to severe disease at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients with RA initiating upadacitinib (62.1% TNFi-experienced) were included. At week 12, 53 patients (51.4%) completed the study and provided PRO data via the app. Among all patients, improvements in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue were observed at week 1 and were maintained or further improved through week 12. At week 12, 37.5% of patients achieved RAPID3 low disease activity. Starting at week 1, improvements in RAPID3 disease activity category (19.4% of patients) and achievement of MCID (16.3%) were reported, with nearly 50% of patients achieving these outcomes by week 4 (RAPID3 category: 48.8%; MCID: 49.2%) and 60% by week 12 (RAPID3 category: 59.6%; MCID: 59.8%). TNFi-experienced patients generally reported similar outcomes. Patient-reported medication convenience and compliance were generally high. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib was associated with early and significant improvement in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue regardless of prior TNFi experience. Clinically meaningful improvement in RAPID3 patient-reported disease activity was observed as early as week 1, with continued improvement reported through week 12.

One-Year Medication Adherence and Persistence in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Analysis of Upadacitinib, Adalimumab, Baricitinib, and Tofacitinib.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated 12 months adherence and persistence among Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib, baricitinib, tofacitinib) and adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This retrospective analysis used administrative claims data from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases (2018-2022). Eligible adults had ≥ 1 RA diagnosis before the index date, ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for index medication, and ≥ 12 months of continuous insurance enrollment pre- and post-index. Adherence to treatment [defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥ 80%], risk of treatment discontinuation, and mean time to discontinuation were assessed during the 12 months follow-up. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR), adjusted hazard ratios (aHR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. RESULTS: In total, 6317 patients were included (683 upadacitinib, 3732 adalimumab, 132 baricitinib, 1770 tofacitinib). Compared with upadacitinib, patients initiating adalimumab [aOR (95% CI): 0.82 (0.69, 0.96)], baricitinib [0.46 (0.31, 0.68)], and tofacitinib [0.74 (0.62, 0.88)] were significantly less likely to achieve PDC ≥ 80%. Risk of treatment discontinuation was significantly higher in patients treated with adalimumab [aHR (95% CI): 1.14 (1.01, 1.29)], baricitinib [1.48 (1.16, 1.90)], and tofacitinib [1.22 (1.07, 1.38)] compared with upadacitinib. Mean time to discontinuation was 256 (upadacitinib), 249 (adalimumab), 221 (baricitinib), and 239 (tofacitinib) days. Similar results were observed in patients with prior TNFi use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA, regardless of recent TNFi experience, initiating upadacitinib were significantly more likely to be adherent and less likely to discontinue therapy compared to adalimumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib in the first 12 months of treatment.

Clinical and Economic Benefit of Achieving Disease Control in Psoriatic Arthritis and Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Retrospective Analysis from the OM1 Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and economic benefit of achieving disease control in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), thus we aimed to assess the impact of disease control on healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct medical costs among US patients with PsA or AS over 1 year. METHODS: Data were derived from the US OM1 PsA/AS registries (PsA: 1/2013-12/2020; AS: 01/2013-4/2021) and the Optum Insight Clinformatics® Data Mart to identify adult patients with PsA or AS. Two cohorts were created: with disease control and without disease control. Disease control was defined as modified Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) ≤ 4 for PsA and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) < 4 for AS. Outcomes were all-cause inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) visits and associated costs over a 1-year follow-up period. Mean costs per person per year (PPPY) were assessed descriptively and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for the likelihood of HCRU by logistic regression. RESULTS: The study included 1235 PsA (with disease control: N = 217; without: N = 1018) and 581 AS patients (with disease control: N = 342; without: N = 239). Patients without disease control were more likely to have an inpatient (aOR [95% CI]; PsA: 3.0 [0.9, 10.1]; AS: 7.7 [2.3, 25.1]) or ED (PsA: 1.6 [0.6, 4.2]; AS: 3.5 [1.5, 8.3]) visit than those with disease control. Those without disease control, vs. those with disease control, had greater PPPY costs associated with inpatient (PsA: $1550 vs. $443), outpatient (PsA: $1789 vs. $1327; AS: $2498 vs. $2023), and ED (PsA: $114 vs. $57; AS: $316 vs. $50) visits. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study demonstrate lower disease activity among patients with PsA and AS is associated with less HCRU and lower costs over the following year.

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Long-Term Upadacitinib Therapy in Five Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a patient-reported outcome tool recommended for the assessment of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice. This analysis evaluated the long-term effect of upadacitinib vs. comparators on RAPID3 scores in patients with RA in the phase 3 SELECT clinical trial program. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included data from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg once daily (QD) as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The proportions of patients reporting RAPID3 remission (scores ≤ 3) were assessed at week 60. Correlations between absolute scores for RAPID3 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) at week 60 were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 3117 patients were included from the SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, -MONOTHERAPY, -COMPARE, and -EARLY trials. By week 60, 32-52% of methotrexate-naïve and csDMARD inadequate responder (IR) patients treated with either upadacitinib 15 mg QD or upadacitinib 30 mg QD reported RAPID3 scores consistent with remission. The proportions were slightly lower in the biologic DMARD-IR SELECT-BEYOND population (19-28%). RAPID3 scores highly correlated (Spearman correlation values ≥ 0.58) with CDAI, SDAI, and DAS28(CRP) scores through week 60 (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib, as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, was associated with patient-reported remission assessed by RAPID3 over 60 weeks across the SELECT RCTs in patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SELECT-BEYOND (NCT02706847); SELECT-NEXT (NCT02675426); SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951); SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873); SELECT-COMPARE (NCT02629159).

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that causes inflammation of the joints. Doctors have several ways of assessing how bad a patient's disease is, and these often use a combination of signs and symptoms to develop a 'score'. One method is called RAPID3, which is a score based on an overall assessment of the disease by the patient, the level of pain, and the amount of physical disability. An advantage of RAPID3 is that it is quick and easy to use, and since it uses only patient-reported symptoms, it can be measured easily via telemedicine, without the need for an in-person consultation. In this study, we decided to look into the effect of upadacitinib, a drug used for the treatment of RA, on RAPID3 score in patients with RA. We also investigated whether RAPID3 correlates with other ways of measuring RA severity, including scores that use physician-measured factors such as number of affected joints, as this can help show whether RAPID3 is a valid and useful tool. We found that upadacitinib led to long-term improvements in RAPID3 score, and that results were the same in different studies and patient groups, including patients who had not responded well to other treatments. We also found that RAPID3 correlated well with other measures, i.e., improvements in RAPID3 happened in parallel with improvements in other scores. Overall, these results suggest that RAPID3 can be a useful tool in patients with RA.

Experiences and Treatment Preferences in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study in the ArthritisPower Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent advances in treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA), many patients experience inadequate response or intolerance to therapy, indicating that unmet treatment-related needs remain. To further characterize these unmet needs, we evaluated patients' experiences regarding the burden of PsA symptoms and disease impacts, and patients' preferences for treatment. METHODS: Patients from ArthritisPower, a rheumatology research registry, completed a web-based survey. Object case best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to evaluate the relative burden of 11 PsA-related symptoms and the relative importance of improvement in nine PsA-related disease impacts. BWS data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model. Patient demographics, preferences for mode and frequency of therapy, and preferences for methotrexate were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 332 participants, most were White (94%), female (80%), with mean age of 54 years (SD 11.4). In the BWS, joint pain was the most bothersome symptom, followed by other musculoskeletal pain and fatigue. The BWS for disease impacts found that improvements in the ability to perform physical activities were most important, followed by improvements in the ability to function independently, sleep quality, and the ability to perform daily activities. The most burdensome symptoms and desired disease impact improvements were similar in patients regardless of their experience with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The most preferred mode and frequency of treatment administration was oral, once-daily medication (preferred by 38% of respondents), and 74% prioritized therapies that significantly improved joint-related symptoms versus psoriasis-related symptoms. The majority of respondents (65%) preferred PsA treatment regimens that did not include methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsA from a rheumatology registry found musculoskeletal pain symptoms to be the most bothersome and prioritized improvements to functional impacts of their disease. These findings can better inform development of new therapies and guide shared patient-provider treatment decision-making.

Effect of upadacitinib on reducing pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: post hoc analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS). METHODS: Patients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%-60%, 35%-49% and 15%-34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points. CONCLUSION: Rapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

Upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to non-biological therapy: 56-week data from the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 study.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT-PsA 1, a randomised double-blind phase 3 study, upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg were superior to placebo and non-inferior to adalimumab in ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria at 12 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Here, we report 56-week efficacy and safety in patients from SELECT-PsA 1. METHODS: Patients received upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, adalimumab 40 mg every other week for 56 weeks or placebo through week 24 switched thereafter to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg until week 56. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20/50/70), ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75/90/100), minimal disease activity (MDA) and change from baseline in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score. Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient years (PY) were summarised. RESULTS: Consistent with results through week 24, ACR20/50/70, PASI75/90/100 and MDA responses were maintained with upadacitinib through week 56 and were generally numerically higher than with adalimumab; inhibition of radiographic progression was also maintained. Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib exhibited comparable improvements at week 56 as patients originally randomised to upadacitinib. The rates of serious adverse events were 9.1 events/100 PY with upadacitinib 15 mg and 12.3 events/100 PY with upadacitinib 30 mg. Two deaths were reported in each of the upadacitinib groups. CONCLUSION: Efficacy across various domains of PsA were maintained with upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg through week 56 with no new safety signals observed.

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Upadacitinib Versus Placebo or Adalimumab: Results from SELECT-PsA 1.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to assess the effect of upadacitinib versus adalimumab and placebo on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with inadequate responses to ≥ 1 non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD-IR) in SELECT PsA-1. METHODS: In this placebo- and active comparator, phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, patients received daily upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg, placebo, or adalimumab 40 mg every other week through 56 weeks. At week 24, placebo-assigned patients were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D-5L index score, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, morning stiffness, Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. Mean changes from baseline in PROs, improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID), scores ≥ normative values, and sustained clinically meaningful responses were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: At weeks 12 and 24, upadacitinib treatment resulted in improvements from baseline versus placebo across all PROs as well as improvements versus adalimumab in HAQ-DI and SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (nominal p < 0.05). Improvements in PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI were reported as early as week 2. At week 12, significantly (nominal p < 0.05) more upadacitinib- versus placebo-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs including seven SF-36 domains. The proportions of upadacitinib-treated patients reporting clinically meaningful improvements at week 12 were similar to or greater than with adalimumab and sustained through week 56. Significantly (nominal p < 0.05) more upadacitinib-treated (both doses) patients reported scores ≥ normative values at week 12 versus placebo, and scores were generally similar to or greater than adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib treatment provides rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in non-bDMARD-IR patients with PsA. SELECT-PsA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104400.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients with an Inadequate Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: SELECT-PsA 2.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has a major impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), important components in the assessment of therapeutic efficacy. We evaluated the impact of upadacitinib on PROs in PsA patients with inadequate responses or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) received 56 weeks of oral upadacitinib 15 mg QD, upadacitinib 30 mg QD, or placebo switched to either dose of upadacitinib at week 24. PROs included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, physical function (HAQ-DI), health-related quality of life (SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary and domain scores), fatigue (FACIT-F), psoriasis symptom severity (SAPS), and work productivity (WPAI). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values, and maintenance of improvements were assessed. RESULTS: At weeks 12 and 24, patients treated with either upadacitinib dose reported statistically and nominally significant improvements from baseline across all PROs versus placebo (p ≤ 0.05), except the WPAI absenteeism domain, which were maintained or further improved to week 56. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving either upadacitinib dose reported improvements ≥ MCID and scores ≥ normative values versus placebo (nominal p ≤ 0.01) in most PROs at weeks 12 and 24, with clinically meaningful improvements continuing to week 56. Improvements ≥ MCID were reported as early as week 2 in PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib provides rapid, clinically meaningful, and sustained improvements in PROs reported by bDMARD-IR PsA patients. SELECT-PsA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104374.

Site-specific resolution of enthesitis in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Enthesitis is a hallmark of spondyloarthritis (SpA) with a substantial impact on quality of life. Reports of treatment effectiveness across individual enthesitis sites in real-world patients with axial SpA (axSpA) are limited. We investigated the evolution of enthesitis following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) initiation in axSpA patients, both cumulatively and at specific axial and peripheral sites. METHODS: AxSpA patients in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management Registry were included if they initiated a TNFi, had an available Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, modified to include the plantar fascia (mMASES, 0-15), at start of treatment and after 6 and/or 12 months and ≥12 months follow-up. Logistic regression models were utilized to analyze explanatory variables for enthesitis resolution. RESULTS: Overall, 1668 TNFi treatment courses (TCs) were included, of which 1117 (67%) had active enthesitis at baseline. Reduction in mMASES at the 6- and 12-month timepoints was experienced in 72% and 70% of TCs, respectively. Enthesitis resolution at 6/12 months occurred in 37.9%/43.0% of all TNFi TCs and 40.7%/50.9% of first TNFi TCs. At 6 months, a significant reduction in the frequency of enthesitis was observed at all sites, except for the Achilles tendon and plantar fascia among first TNFi TCs, while at 12 months, reduction was significant at all sites in both TC groups. Enthesitis resolved in 60.3-77% across anatomical sites, while new incident enthesitis occurred in 4.0-13.5% of all TNFi TCs at 12 months. Both baseline and new-incident enthesitis occurred most frequently at the posterior superior iliac spine and the fifth lumbar spinous process. Younger age and lower mMASES at baseline were predictors of complete enthesitis resolution, while female sex and second- or later-line TNFi treatment were associated with persistence of enthesitis at 12 months. CONCLUSION: In real-world axSpA patients treated with a TNFi, enthesitis improved in the majority of patients across all anatomical sites. Significant improvement at the Achilles and plantar fascia entheses was observed only at 12 months. Complete and site-specific enthesitis resolution occurred in ≥40% and ≥60% of TCs evaluated at 12 months, with a low incidence of new site-specific enthesitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Upadacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Biologics: 56-Week Data from the Randomized Controlled Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under investigation in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study assessed the 56-week efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with PsA and an inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy. METHODS: In the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study, patients were randomized to 56 weeks of blinded treatment with oral upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily, or placebo switched to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily at week 24. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), 75/90/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75/90/100), and minimal disease activity. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 641 patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug, 479 (74.7%) completed 56 weeks of treatment. Improvements in the proportion of patients achieving ACR20/50/70, PASI75/90/100, and minimal disease activity were maintained with both doses of upadacitinib through 56 weeks. Week 56 results for patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 24 were similar to those for patients originally randomized to the upadacitinib groups. The exposure-adjusted event rate for serious infections was 2.6 and 6.1 events/100 patient-years in the upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg groups, respectively. Herpes zoster occurred more frequently with upadacitinib 30 versus 15 mg; most cases were non-serious. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA who had an inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy, the efficacy of upadacitinib was maintained over 56 weeks with no new significant safety signals observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03104374.

Trial of Upadacitinib and Adalimumab for Psoriatic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib is a potential treatment for psoriatic arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, in patients who have an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are unclear. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, placebo, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week). The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in at least three of five other domains) at week 12 with upadacitinib as compared with placebo. Secondary end points included comparisons of upadacitinib with adalimumab. RESULTS: A total of 1704 patients received an active drug or placebo. The percentage of patients who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was 70.6% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 78.5% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 36.2% with placebo (P<0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs. placebo), and 65.0% with adalimumab. The difference between groups for 15-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 5.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 11.8) and for 30-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 13.5 percentage points (95% CI, 7.5 to 19.4). Both upadacitinib doses were noninferior to adalimumab for the ACR20 response at week 12; the 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. The incidence of adverse events through week 24 was 66.9% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 72.3% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 59.6% with placebo, and 64.8% with adalimumab. There were serious infections in 1.2%, 2.6%, 0.9%, and 0.7% of the patients, respectively. Hepatic disorders occurred in 9.1% of patients in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 12.3% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, but grade 3 increases in aminotransferase levels occurred in 2% of patients or fewer in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was significantly higher with 15-mg or 30-mg upadacitinib than with placebo. The 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. Adverse events were more frequent with upadacitinib than with placebo. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-PsA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104400.).

Upadacitinib for psoriatic arthritis refractory to biologics: SELECT-PsA 2.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under evaluation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated upadacitinib in patients with PsA and prior inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). METHODS: In this 24-week randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, 642 patients were randomised (2:2:1:1) to once per day upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo followed by upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 12. Achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) was assessed at week 24. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported for all patients who received at least one dose of trial drug. RESULTS: At week 12, significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus placebo achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). At week 24, MDA was achieved by more upadacitinib 15 mg-treated (25.1%) and 30 mg-treated patients (28.9%) versus placebo (2.8%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). Generally, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with placebo and upadacitinib 15 mg and higher with upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. Rates of serious infections were 0.5%, 0.5% and 2.8% with placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this trial of patients with active PsA who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic DMARD, upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg was more effective than placebo over 24 weeks in improving signs and symptoms of PsA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03104374.

Longterm, Real-world Safety of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of a Prospective US-based Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess longterm safety in a US cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) in real-world clinical care settings. METHODS: This observational study analyzed the longterm incidence of safety outcomes among patients with RA initiating ADA, using data from the Corrona RA registry. Patients were adults (≥ 18 yrs) who initiated ADA treatment between January 2008 and June 2017, and who had at least 1 followup visit. RESULTS: In total, 2798 ADA initiators were available for analysis, with a mean age of 54.5 years, 77% female, and mean disease duration of 8.3 years. Nearly half (48%) were biologic-naive, and 9% were using prednisone ≥ 10 mg at ADA initiation. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for serious infections, congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), and all-cause mortality were 1.86, 0.15, 0.64, and 0.33, respectively. The incidence of serious infections was higher in the first year of therapy (3.44, 95% CI 2.45-4.84) than in subsequent years, while other measured adverse effects did not vary substantially by duration of exposure. The median time to ADA discontinuation was 11 months, while the median time to first serious infection among those experiencing a serious infection event was 12 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of longterm data from this prospective real-world registry demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous studies in patients with RA. This analysis did not identify any new safety signals associated with ADA treatment and provides guidance for physicians prescribing ADA for extended periods.

Older Medicare Beneficiaries Frequently Continue Medications with Limited Benefit Following Hospice Admission.

BACKGROUND: The use of medications not relieving symptoms or maximizing quality of life should be minimized following hospice enrollment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of and predictive factors for continuation of medications with limited benefit after hospice admission among those admitted for cancer- and non-cancer-related causes. DESIGN: Cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. PATIENTS: Medicare Part D-enrolled beneficiaries 66 years and older who were admitted to and died under hospice care between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (N = 70,035). MAIN MEASURES: Patients were followed from hospice enrollment through death for Part D dispensing of limited benefit medications (LBMs) they had used in the 6 months prior to hospice admission, including anti-hyperlipidemics, anti-hypertensives, oral anti-diabetics, anti-platelets, anti-dementia medications, anti-osteoporotic medications, and proton pump inhibitors. The proportion of patients continuing an LBM after hospice admission was evaluated. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) were estimated for factors associated with LBM continuation. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 29.8% and 30.5% of patients admitted to hospice for a cancer- and non-cancer-related cause, respectively, continued at least one LBM after hospice admission. Anti-dementia medications were continued most frequently (29.3%) while anti-osteoporotic medications were continued least often (14.1%). Compared to home hospice, LBM continuation was greater in hospice patients residing in skilled nursing (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.29), non-skilled nursing (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.25-1.32), and assisted living facilities (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.24-1.32). Patients with hospice stays ≥ 180 days were more likely to continue at least one LBM compared to those with stays of 1 week or less (RR 13.11, 95% CI 12.25-14.02). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Medicare hospice beneficiaries continued to receive LBMs following hospice enrollment. Providers should evaluate the necessity of continuing non-palliative medications at the end of life through a careful, patient-centric consideration of their potential risks and benefits.

Risk of Developing Additional Immune-Mediated Manifestations: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) cause significant impairment in quality of life. Although they share similar genetic factors, environmental precipitants, and pathophysiological mechanisms, there is little evidence on the risk of developing subsequent IMIDs after an initial IMID diagnosis. We sought to assess the risk of developing subsequent IMIDs among patients diagnosed with an initial IMID. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study used a large US commercial health insurance claims database (01/01/2006-09/30/2015). The risks of developing secondary IMIDs among patients aged 18-64 years with a diagnosis of one of nine IMIDs of interest (ankylosing spondylitis, celiac disease, hidradenitis suppurativa [HS], inflammatory bowel disease, lupus, psoriatic arthritis [PsA], psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis) as identified from diagnosis codes on medical claims were compared with up to 1000 matched controls without the primary IMID using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Across the nine IMIDs of interest, there were 398,935 unique case patients matched to 256,795,796 non-unique control patients. Case patients with an initial IMID had higher risks of developing each, any one, and any two of the other eight secondary IMIDs compared to their matched controls. Hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] for the risk of developing any one secondary IMID ranged from 5.4 [5.0, 5.8] (initial IMID: HS) to 62.2 [59.9, 64.6] (initial IMID: PsA), and hazard ratios for developing any two secondary IMIDs ranged from 3.0 [2.3, 3.8] (HS) to 75.2 [69.3, 81.7] (PsA). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the risk of developing a second IMID is significantly higher for individuals who have already experienced a first IMID in a large and contemporary US claims database. Certain pairs of IMIDs co-occur more frequently than others. The risk of developing subsequent IMIDs may be an important consideration for clinicians when selecting treatment strategies. FUNDING: Abbvie.