User login
EULAR updates vaccination recommendations for autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease patients
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Digital health and big data: New tools for making the most of real-world evidence
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Digital health technology is vastly expanding the real-world data pool for clinical and comparative effectiveness research, according to Jeffrey Curtis, MD.
The trick is to harness the power of that data to improve patient care and outcomes, and that can be achieved in part through linkage of data sources and through point-of-care access, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
“We want to take care of patients, but probably what you and I also want is to have real-world evidence ... evidence relevant for people [we] take care of on a day-to-day basis – not people in highly selected phase 3 or even phase 4 trials,” he said.
Real-world data, which gained particular cachet through the 21st Century Cures Act permitting the Food and Drug Administration to consider real-world evidence as part of the regulatory process and in post-marketing surveillance, includes information from electronic health records (EHRs), health plan claims, traditional registries, and mobile health and technology, explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
“And you and I want it because patients are different, and in medicine we only have about 20% of patients where there is direct evidence about what we should do,” he added. “Give me the trial that describes the 75-year-old African American smoker with diabetes and how well he does on biologic du jour; there’s no trial like that, and yet you and I need to make those kinds of decisions in light of patients’ comorbidities and other features.”
Generating real-world evidence, however, requires new approaches and new tools, he said, explaining that efficiency is key for applying the data in busy practices, as is compatibility with delivering an intervention and with randomization.
Imagine using the EHR at the point of care to look up what happened to “the last 10 patients like this” based on how they were treated by you or your colleagues, he said.
“That would be useful information to have. In fact, the day is not so far in the future where you could, perhaps, randomize within your EHR if you had a clinically important question that really needed an answer and a protocol attached,” he added.
Real-world data collection
Pragmatic trials offer one approach to garnering real-world data by addressing a simple question – usually with a hard outcome – using very few inclusion and exclusion criteria, Dr. Curtis said, describing the recently completed VERVE Zoster Vaccine trial.
He and his colleagues randomized 617 patients from 33 sites to look at the safety of the live-virus Zostavax herpes zoster vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients over age 50 years on any anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Half of the patients received saline, the other half received the vaccine, and no cases of varicella zoster occurred in either group.
“So, to the extent that half of 617 people with zero cases was reassuring, we now have some evidence where heretofore there was none,” he said, noting that those results will be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. “But the focus of this talk is not on vaccination, it’s really on how we do real-world effectiveness or safety studies in a way that doesn’t slow us way down and doesn’t require some big research operation.”
One way is through efficient recruitment, and depending on how complicated the study is, qualified patients may be easily identifiable through the EHR. In fact, numerous tools are available to codify and search both structured and unstructured data, Dr. Curtis said, noting that he and his colleagues used the web-based i2b2 Query Tool for the VERVE study.
The study sites that did the best with recruiting had the ability to search their own EHRs for patients who met the inclusion criteria, and those patients were then invited to participate. A short video was created to educate those who were interested, and a “knowledge review” quiz was administered afterward to ensure informed consent, which was provided via digital signature.
Health plan and other “big data” can also be very useful for answering certain questions. One example is how soon biologics should be stopped before elective orthopedic surgery? Dr. Curtis and colleagues looked at this using claims data for nearly 4,300 patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and found no evidence that administering infliximab within 4 weeks of surgery increased serious infection risk within 30 days or prosthetic joint infection within 1 year.
“Where else are you going to go run a prospective study of 4,300 elective hips and knees,” he said, stressing that it wouldn’t be easy.
Other sources that can help generate real-world effectiveness data include traditional or single-center registries and EHR-based registries.
“The EHR registries are, I think, the newest that many are part of in our field,” he said, noting that “a number of groups are aggregating that,” including the ACR RISE registry and some physician groups, for example.
“What we’re really after is to have a clinically integrated network and a learning health care environment,” he explained, adding that the goal is to develop care pathways.
The approach represents a shift from evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence, he noted.
“When you and I practice, we’re generating that evidence and now we just need to harness that data to get smarter to take care of patients,” he said, adding that the lack of randomization for much of these data isn’t necessarily a problem.
“Do you have to randomize? I would argue that you don’t necessarily have to randomize if the source of variability in how we treat patients is very related to patients’ characteristics,” he said.
If the evidence for a specific approach is weak, or a decision is based on physician preference, physician practice, or insurance company considerations instead of patient characteristics, randomization may not be necessary, he explained.
In fact, insurance company requirements often create “natural experiments” that can be used to help identify better practices. For example, if one only covers adalimumab for first-line TNF inhibition, and another has a “different fail-first policy and that’s not first line and everybody gets some other TNF inhibitor, then I can probably compare those quite reasonably,” he said.
“That’s a great setting where you might not need randomization.”
Of note, “having more data sometimes trumps smarter algorithms,” but that means finding and linking more data that “exist in the wild,” Dr. Curtis said.
Linking data sources
When he and his colleagues wanted to assess the cost of not achieving RA remission, no single data source provided all of the information they needed. They used both CORRONA registry data and health claims data to look at various outcome measures across disease activity categories and with adjustment for comorbidity clusters. They previously reported on the feasibility and validity of the approach.
“We’re currently doing another project where one of the local Blue Cross plans said ‘I’m interested to support you to see how efficient you are; we will donate or loan you our claims data [and] let you link it to your practice so you can actually tell us ... cost conditional on [a patient’s] disease activity,’ ” he said.
Another example involves a recent study looking at biomarker-based cardiovascular disease risk prediction in RA using data from nearly 31,000 Medicare patients linked with multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) test results, with which they “basically built and validated a risk prediction model,” he said.
The point is that such data linkage provided tools for use at the point of care that can predict CVD risk using “some simple things that you and I have in our EHR,” he said. “But you couldn’t do this if you had to assemble a prospective cohort of tens of thousands of arthritis patients and then wait years for follow-up.”
Patient-reported outcomes collected at the point of care and by patients at home between visits, such as digital data collected via wearable technology, can provide additional information to help improve patient care and management.
“My interest is not to think about [these data sources] in isolation, but really to think about how we bring these together,” he said. “I’m interested in maximizing value for both patients and clinicians, and not having to pick only one of these data sources, but really to harness several of them if that’s what we need to take better care of patients and to answer important questions.”
Doing so is increasingly important given the workforce shortage in rheumatology, he noted.
“The point is that we’re going to need to be a whole lot more efficient as a field because there are going to be fewer of us even at a time when more of us are needed,” he said.
It’s a topic in which the ACR has shown a lot of interest, he said, noting that he cochaired a preconference course on mobile health technologies at the 2018 ACR annual meeting and is involved with a similar course on “big data” ahead of the 2019 meeting.
The thought of making use of the various digital health and “big data” sources can be overwhelming, but the key is to start with the question that needs an answer or the problem that needs to be solved.
“Don’t start with the data,” he explained. “Start with [asking] ... ‘What am I trying to do?’ ”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Digital health technology is vastly expanding the real-world data pool for clinical and comparative effectiveness research, according to Jeffrey Curtis, MD.
The trick is to harness the power of that data to improve patient care and outcomes, and that can be achieved in part through linkage of data sources and through point-of-care access, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
“We want to take care of patients, but probably what you and I also want is to have real-world evidence ... evidence relevant for people [we] take care of on a day-to-day basis – not people in highly selected phase 3 or even phase 4 trials,” he said.
Real-world data, which gained particular cachet through the 21st Century Cures Act permitting the Food and Drug Administration to consider real-world evidence as part of the regulatory process and in post-marketing surveillance, includes information from electronic health records (EHRs), health plan claims, traditional registries, and mobile health and technology, explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
“And you and I want it because patients are different, and in medicine we only have about 20% of patients where there is direct evidence about what we should do,” he added. “Give me the trial that describes the 75-year-old African American smoker with diabetes and how well he does on biologic du jour; there’s no trial like that, and yet you and I need to make those kinds of decisions in light of patients’ comorbidities and other features.”
Generating real-world evidence, however, requires new approaches and new tools, he said, explaining that efficiency is key for applying the data in busy practices, as is compatibility with delivering an intervention and with randomization.
Imagine using the EHR at the point of care to look up what happened to “the last 10 patients like this” based on how they were treated by you or your colleagues, he said.
“That would be useful information to have. In fact, the day is not so far in the future where you could, perhaps, randomize within your EHR if you had a clinically important question that really needed an answer and a protocol attached,” he added.
Real-world data collection
Pragmatic trials offer one approach to garnering real-world data by addressing a simple question – usually with a hard outcome – using very few inclusion and exclusion criteria, Dr. Curtis said, describing the recently completed VERVE Zoster Vaccine trial.
He and his colleagues randomized 617 patients from 33 sites to look at the safety of the live-virus Zostavax herpes zoster vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients over age 50 years on any anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Half of the patients received saline, the other half received the vaccine, and no cases of varicella zoster occurred in either group.
“So, to the extent that half of 617 people with zero cases was reassuring, we now have some evidence where heretofore there was none,” he said, noting that those results will be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. “But the focus of this talk is not on vaccination, it’s really on how we do real-world effectiveness or safety studies in a way that doesn’t slow us way down and doesn’t require some big research operation.”
One way is through efficient recruitment, and depending on how complicated the study is, qualified patients may be easily identifiable through the EHR. In fact, numerous tools are available to codify and search both structured and unstructured data, Dr. Curtis said, noting that he and his colleagues used the web-based i2b2 Query Tool for the VERVE study.
The study sites that did the best with recruiting had the ability to search their own EHRs for patients who met the inclusion criteria, and those patients were then invited to participate. A short video was created to educate those who were interested, and a “knowledge review” quiz was administered afterward to ensure informed consent, which was provided via digital signature.
Health plan and other “big data” can also be very useful for answering certain questions. One example is how soon biologics should be stopped before elective orthopedic surgery? Dr. Curtis and colleagues looked at this using claims data for nearly 4,300 patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and found no evidence that administering infliximab within 4 weeks of surgery increased serious infection risk within 30 days or prosthetic joint infection within 1 year.
“Where else are you going to go run a prospective study of 4,300 elective hips and knees,” he said, stressing that it wouldn’t be easy.
Other sources that can help generate real-world effectiveness data include traditional or single-center registries and EHR-based registries.
“The EHR registries are, I think, the newest that many are part of in our field,” he said, noting that “a number of groups are aggregating that,” including the ACR RISE registry and some physician groups, for example.
“What we’re really after is to have a clinically integrated network and a learning health care environment,” he explained, adding that the goal is to develop care pathways.
The approach represents a shift from evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence, he noted.
“When you and I practice, we’re generating that evidence and now we just need to harness that data to get smarter to take care of patients,” he said, adding that the lack of randomization for much of these data isn’t necessarily a problem.
“Do you have to randomize? I would argue that you don’t necessarily have to randomize if the source of variability in how we treat patients is very related to patients’ characteristics,” he said.
If the evidence for a specific approach is weak, or a decision is based on physician preference, physician practice, or insurance company considerations instead of patient characteristics, randomization may not be necessary, he explained.
In fact, insurance company requirements often create “natural experiments” that can be used to help identify better practices. For example, if one only covers adalimumab for first-line TNF inhibition, and another has a “different fail-first policy and that’s not first line and everybody gets some other TNF inhibitor, then I can probably compare those quite reasonably,” he said.
“That’s a great setting where you might not need randomization.”
Of note, “having more data sometimes trumps smarter algorithms,” but that means finding and linking more data that “exist in the wild,” Dr. Curtis said.
Linking data sources
When he and his colleagues wanted to assess the cost of not achieving RA remission, no single data source provided all of the information they needed. They used both CORRONA registry data and health claims data to look at various outcome measures across disease activity categories and with adjustment for comorbidity clusters. They previously reported on the feasibility and validity of the approach.
“We’re currently doing another project where one of the local Blue Cross plans said ‘I’m interested to support you to see how efficient you are; we will donate or loan you our claims data [and] let you link it to your practice so you can actually tell us ... cost conditional on [a patient’s] disease activity,’ ” he said.
Another example involves a recent study looking at biomarker-based cardiovascular disease risk prediction in RA using data from nearly 31,000 Medicare patients linked with multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) test results, with which they “basically built and validated a risk prediction model,” he said.
The point is that such data linkage provided tools for use at the point of care that can predict CVD risk using “some simple things that you and I have in our EHR,” he said. “But you couldn’t do this if you had to assemble a prospective cohort of tens of thousands of arthritis patients and then wait years for follow-up.”
Patient-reported outcomes collected at the point of care and by patients at home between visits, such as digital data collected via wearable technology, can provide additional information to help improve patient care and management.
“My interest is not to think about [these data sources] in isolation, but really to think about how we bring these together,” he said. “I’m interested in maximizing value for both patients and clinicians, and not having to pick only one of these data sources, but really to harness several of them if that’s what we need to take better care of patients and to answer important questions.”
Doing so is increasingly important given the workforce shortage in rheumatology, he noted.
“The point is that we’re going to need to be a whole lot more efficient as a field because there are going to be fewer of us even at a time when more of us are needed,” he said.
It’s a topic in which the ACR has shown a lot of interest, he said, noting that he cochaired a preconference course on mobile health technologies at the 2018 ACR annual meeting and is involved with a similar course on “big data” ahead of the 2019 meeting.
The thought of making use of the various digital health and “big data” sources can be overwhelming, but the key is to start with the question that needs an answer or the problem that needs to be solved.
“Don’t start with the data,” he explained. “Start with [asking] ... ‘What am I trying to do?’ ”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Digital health technology is vastly expanding the real-world data pool for clinical and comparative effectiveness research, according to Jeffrey Curtis, MD.
The trick is to harness the power of that data to improve patient care and outcomes, and that can be achieved in part through linkage of data sources and through point-of-care access, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
“We want to take care of patients, but probably what you and I also want is to have real-world evidence ... evidence relevant for people [we] take care of on a day-to-day basis – not people in highly selected phase 3 or even phase 4 trials,” he said.
Real-world data, which gained particular cachet through the 21st Century Cures Act permitting the Food and Drug Administration to consider real-world evidence as part of the regulatory process and in post-marketing surveillance, includes information from electronic health records (EHRs), health plan claims, traditional registries, and mobile health and technology, explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
“And you and I want it because patients are different, and in medicine we only have about 20% of patients where there is direct evidence about what we should do,” he added. “Give me the trial that describes the 75-year-old African American smoker with diabetes and how well he does on biologic du jour; there’s no trial like that, and yet you and I need to make those kinds of decisions in light of patients’ comorbidities and other features.”
Generating real-world evidence, however, requires new approaches and new tools, he said, explaining that efficiency is key for applying the data in busy practices, as is compatibility with delivering an intervention and with randomization.
Imagine using the EHR at the point of care to look up what happened to “the last 10 patients like this” based on how they were treated by you or your colleagues, he said.
“That would be useful information to have. In fact, the day is not so far in the future where you could, perhaps, randomize within your EHR if you had a clinically important question that really needed an answer and a protocol attached,” he added.
Real-world data collection
Pragmatic trials offer one approach to garnering real-world data by addressing a simple question – usually with a hard outcome – using very few inclusion and exclusion criteria, Dr. Curtis said, describing the recently completed VERVE Zoster Vaccine trial.
He and his colleagues randomized 617 patients from 33 sites to look at the safety of the live-virus Zostavax herpes zoster vaccine in rheumatoid arthritis patients over age 50 years on any anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Half of the patients received saline, the other half received the vaccine, and no cases of varicella zoster occurred in either group.
“So, to the extent that half of 617 people with zero cases was reassuring, we now have some evidence where heretofore there was none,” he said, noting that those results will be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. “But the focus of this talk is not on vaccination, it’s really on how we do real-world effectiveness or safety studies in a way that doesn’t slow us way down and doesn’t require some big research operation.”
One way is through efficient recruitment, and depending on how complicated the study is, qualified patients may be easily identifiable through the EHR. In fact, numerous tools are available to codify and search both structured and unstructured data, Dr. Curtis said, noting that he and his colleagues used the web-based i2b2 Query Tool for the VERVE study.
The study sites that did the best with recruiting had the ability to search their own EHRs for patients who met the inclusion criteria, and those patients were then invited to participate. A short video was created to educate those who were interested, and a “knowledge review” quiz was administered afterward to ensure informed consent, which was provided via digital signature.
Health plan and other “big data” can also be very useful for answering certain questions. One example is how soon biologics should be stopped before elective orthopedic surgery? Dr. Curtis and colleagues looked at this using claims data for nearly 4,300 patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and found no evidence that administering infliximab within 4 weeks of surgery increased serious infection risk within 30 days or prosthetic joint infection within 1 year.
“Where else are you going to go run a prospective study of 4,300 elective hips and knees,” he said, stressing that it wouldn’t be easy.
Other sources that can help generate real-world effectiveness data include traditional or single-center registries and EHR-based registries.
“The EHR registries are, I think, the newest that many are part of in our field,” he said, noting that “a number of groups are aggregating that,” including the ACR RISE registry and some physician groups, for example.
“What we’re really after is to have a clinically integrated network and a learning health care environment,” he explained, adding that the goal is to develop care pathways.
The approach represents a shift from evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence, he noted.
“When you and I practice, we’re generating that evidence and now we just need to harness that data to get smarter to take care of patients,” he said, adding that the lack of randomization for much of these data isn’t necessarily a problem.
“Do you have to randomize? I would argue that you don’t necessarily have to randomize if the source of variability in how we treat patients is very related to patients’ characteristics,” he said.
If the evidence for a specific approach is weak, or a decision is based on physician preference, physician practice, or insurance company considerations instead of patient characteristics, randomization may not be necessary, he explained.
In fact, insurance company requirements often create “natural experiments” that can be used to help identify better practices. For example, if one only covers adalimumab for first-line TNF inhibition, and another has a “different fail-first policy and that’s not first line and everybody gets some other TNF inhibitor, then I can probably compare those quite reasonably,” he said.
“That’s a great setting where you might not need randomization.”
Of note, “having more data sometimes trumps smarter algorithms,” but that means finding and linking more data that “exist in the wild,” Dr. Curtis said.
Linking data sources
When he and his colleagues wanted to assess the cost of not achieving RA remission, no single data source provided all of the information they needed. They used both CORRONA registry data and health claims data to look at various outcome measures across disease activity categories and with adjustment for comorbidity clusters. They previously reported on the feasibility and validity of the approach.
“We’re currently doing another project where one of the local Blue Cross plans said ‘I’m interested to support you to see how efficient you are; we will donate or loan you our claims data [and] let you link it to your practice so you can actually tell us ... cost conditional on [a patient’s] disease activity,’ ” he said.
Another example involves a recent study looking at biomarker-based cardiovascular disease risk prediction in RA using data from nearly 31,000 Medicare patients linked with multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) test results, with which they “basically built and validated a risk prediction model,” he said.
The point is that such data linkage provided tools for use at the point of care that can predict CVD risk using “some simple things that you and I have in our EHR,” he said. “But you couldn’t do this if you had to assemble a prospective cohort of tens of thousands of arthritis patients and then wait years for follow-up.”
Patient-reported outcomes collected at the point of care and by patients at home between visits, such as digital data collected via wearable technology, can provide additional information to help improve patient care and management.
“My interest is not to think about [these data sources] in isolation, but really to think about how we bring these together,” he said. “I’m interested in maximizing value for both patients and clinicians, and not having to pick only one of these data sources, but really to harness several of them if that’s what we need to take better care of patients and to answer important questions.”
Doing so is increasingly important given the workforce shortage in rheumatology, he noted.
“The point is that we’re going to need to be a whole lot more efficient as a field because there are going to be fewer of us even at a time when more of us are needed,” he said.
It’s a topic in which the ACR has shown a lot of interest, he said, noting that he cochaired a preconference course on mobile health technologies at the 2018 ACR annual meeting and is involved with a similar course on “big data” ahead of the 2019 meeting.
The thought of making use of the various digital health and “big data” sources can be overwhelming, but the key is to start with the question that needs an answer or the problem that needs to be solved.
“Don’t start with the data,” he explained. “Start with [asking] ... ‘What am I trying to do?’ ”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute on Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM FSR 2019
FDA approves upadacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis
according to a release from its developer. The indication specifies that patients must have shown inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.
The approval is based on the SELECT program, which included 4,400 patients across five studies that tested the oral Janus kinase inhibitor in various settings, such as alone or with methotrexate. All primary and secondary endpoints were met in these trials. For example, among patients with inadequate response to methotrexate in one study, 68% of those treated with 15-mg upadacitinib monotherapy achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 14 versus 41% of those who had continued on methotrexate. In another study of patients with in adequate response to methotrexate, 71% of those treated with upadacitinib/methotrexate combination therapy achieved ACR20 at week 12 versus 36% of those receiving placebo and methotrexate. Compared with other treatments, better rates of clinical remission and radiographic inhibition were seen with upadacitinib-based therapies, too.
Upadacitinib carries a boxed warning – the most serious warning the FDA issues – for risks of serious infection, malignancy, and thrombosis; these serious risks should be weighed against treatment benefits in any patients with increased risk for these problems or currently experiencing any of them. Concomitant use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic DMARDs, or with potent immunosuppressants is not recommended; its use also is not recommended for patients with severe hepatic impairment. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, cough, and pyrexia. Live vaccines should be avoided with patients taking this drug, and patients who are breastfeeding should be advised against use of it.
More prescribing information can be found in the drug’s label, which can be found on the FDA’s website.
Upadacitinib is also being evaluated for treatment of other immune-mediated diseases.
according to a release from its developer. The indication specifies that patients must have shown inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.
The approval is based on the SELECT program, which included 4,400 patients across five studies that tested the oral Janus kinase inhibitor in various settings, such as alone or with methotrexate. All primary and secondary endpoints were met in these trials. For example, among patients with inadequate response to methotrexate in one study, 68% of those treated with 15-mg upadacitinib monotherapy achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 14 versus 41% of those who had continued on methotrexate. In another study of patients with in adequate response to methotrexate, 71% of those treated with upadacitinib/methotrexate combination therapy achieved ACR20 at week 12 versus 36% of those receiving placebo and methotrexate. Compared with other treatments, better rates of clinical remission and radiographic inhibition were seen with upadacitinib-based therapies, too.
Upadacitinib carries a boxed warning – the most serious warning the FDA issues – for risks of serious infection, malignancy, and thrombosis; these serious risks should be weighed against treatment benefits in any patients with increased risk for these problems or currently experiencing any of them. Concomitant use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic DMARDs, or with potent immunosuppressants is not recommended; its use also is not recommended for patients with severe hepatic impairment. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, cough, and pyrexia. Live vaccines should be avoided with patients taking this drug, and patients who are breastfeeding should be advised against use of it.
More prescribing information can be found in the drug’s label, which can be found on the FDA’s website.
Upadacitinib is also being evaluated for treatment of other immune-mediated diseases.
according to a release from its developer. The indication specifies that patients must have shown inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate.
The approval is based on the SELECT program, which included 4,400 patients across five studies that tested the oral Janus kinase inhibitor in various settings, such as alone or with methotrexate. All primary and secondary endpoints were met in these trials. For example, among patients with inadequate response to methotrexate in one study, 68% of those treated with 15-mg upadacitinib monotherapy achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 14 versus 41% of those who had continued on methotrexate. In another study of patients with in adequate response to methotrexate, 71% of those treated with upadacitinib/methotrexate combination therapy achieved ACR20 at week 12 versus 36% of those receiving placebo and methotrexate. Compared with other treatments, better rates of clinical remission and radiographic inhibition were seen with upadacitinib-based therapies, too.
Upadacitinib carries a boxed warning – the most serious warning the FDA issues – for risks of serious infection, malignancy, and thrombosis; these serious risks should be weighed against treatment benefits in any patients with increased risk for these problems or currently experiencing any of them. Concomitant use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic DMARDs, or with potent immunosuppressants is not recommended; its use also is not recommended for patients with severe hepatic impairment. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, cough, and pyrexia. Live vaccines should be avoided with patients taking this drug, and patients who are breastfeeding should be advised against use of it.
More prescribing information can be found in the drug’s label, which can be found on the FDA’s website.
Upadacitinib is also being evaluated for treatment of other immune-mediated diseases.
PROMIS tools provide useful data for managing rheumatology patients
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. –
The PROMIS tools – which like most patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools are designed to evaluate and monitor physical, mental, and social health – can be used both for the general population and for individuals living with chronic conditions, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
The tools take a deeper dive into various symptoms and their effects; for instance, with respect to physical health, they measure fatigue, physical function, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference – the extent to which pain “messes your patient’s life up,” explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
Additional physical health domains that PROs measure include dyspnea, gastrointestinal symptoms, pain behavior, pain quality, sexual function, and sleep-related impairment.
These are “things that, honestly, we don’t talk about much as a field, but absolutely affect patients with autoimmune diseases,” he said. “You know, sexual function – that doesn’t come up in my practice spontaneously very often, but there are ways you can quantify that, and for many patients that’s actually a big deal.”
The domains measured by PROMIS tools for mental health look at anxiety and depression, but also delve into alcohol use, anger, cognitive function, life satisfaction, self-efficacy for managing chronic conditions, substance use, and more. The domains for social health address ability to participate in social roles and activities, as well as companionship, satisfaction with social roles and activity, social isolation, and social support.
“You can’t go on a hike with friends [and] be far from a bathroom, because you have bad arthritis and you have Crohn’s disease. Well, that’s kind of an important thing that may or may not come up in your discussions about inflammatory arthritis associated with [inflammatory bowel disease],” he said.
Another example is a patient who is embarrassed attending social functions or wearing a swimsuit because of really bad psoriasis.
“These are the kinds of things that I’m suggesting you and I probably want to measure if we’re providing holistic care to rheumatology patients,” Dr. Curtis said.
The PROMIS tools provide a simple, user-friendly means for doing so in English, Spanish, and many other languages, he noted.
All the scales use the same 1-100 scoring range, which simplifies measurements. They are available for free by download and can be printed or used electronically for use in the office, at home, on the web, and via smartphone.
The NIH developed the PROMIS tools several years ago and validated them for multiple chronic disease populations, Dr. Curtis said, adding that the tools include multiple individual domains and overall “profiles” of varying lengths.
Most are fixed-length scales that are between 4 and 10 questions and can be completed within 30-60 seconds per scale, so several scales can be completed within 5-10 minutes.
However, some scales are longer and provide greater detail.
“The nice thing is that if you ask a few more questions you can get more precise information – there’s more of a floor and ceiling. You can detect people who do really well. You can distinguish between the marathon runners and the 5K-ers and the people who can walk 2 miles but aren’t going to run a race,” he explained.
Further, the PROMIS tools, like the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), are benchmarked against the U.S. adult population, allowing for assessment of how a specific drug or treatment “impacts your arthritis patient on a scale that would also be relevant for somebody who doesn’t have arthritis, they have diabetes.”
The metrics and scales are the same, and that can be helpful when trying to get a payer to pay for a particular drug, he said.
“None of these are rheumatology specific; this puts PROs into a language that can help rheumatology contend for the value of the care that we provide on a scale that would be relevant for any other chronic illness, even for nonrheumatology patients,” he explained.
In addition, minimally important differences (group mean change of about 2-3 units) and minimally clinical important differences for individuals (5 units) have been established.
“So we know what the numbers mean, and this is true for all of the scales,” he said.
PROMIS tools also include computer-adaptive testing (CAT) versions, which helps to personalize the scales to provide more precise information for a given patient and eliminate irrelevant information.
Of note, PROMIS health measures are among the data that can be tracked on a smartphone using Arthritis Power, an arthritis research registry developed with the help of a recent infrastructure grant awarded to the Center for Education and Research and Therapeutics of Musculoskeletal Disorders at UAB, Dr. Curtis said.
The measures were also shown in the AWARE study to track closely with other measures, including the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and with patient improvement on therapy.
“So these PROMIS scores are tracking with things that you and I are familiar with ... and it looks like these scores are faithfully tracking, over time, patients getting better on therapies that we would expect them to,” he said. “I think this is additional validation – not just from the National Institutes of Health and a decade of research by lots of different groups, but in our own field – that these actually correlate with disease activity ... and that when you start an effective therapy like a [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] they’re going to improve as you would anticipate.”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. –
The PROMIS tools – which like most patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools are designed to evaluate and monitor physical, mental, and social health – can be used both for the general population and for individuals living with chronic conditions, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
The tools take a deeper dive into various symptoms and their effects; for instance, with respect to physical health, they measure fatigue, physical function, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference – the extent to which pain “messes your patient’s life up,” explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
Additional physical health domains that PROs measure include dyspnea, gastrointestinal symptoms, pain behavior, pain quality, sexual function, and sleep-related impairment.
These are “things that, honestly, we don’t talk about much as a field, but absolutely affect patients with autoimmune diseases,” he said. “You know, sexual function – that doesn’t come up in my practice spontaneously very often, but there are ways you can quantify that, and for many patients that’s actually a big deal.”
The domains measured by PROMIS tools for mental health look at anxiety and depression, but also delve into alcohol use, anger, cognitive function, life satisfaction, self-efficacy for managing chronic conditions, substance use, and more. The domains for social health address ability to participate in social roles and activities, as well as companionship, satisfaction with social roles and activity, social isolation, and social support.
“You can’t go on a hike with friends [and] be far from a bathroom, because you have bad arthritis and you have Crohn’s disease. Well, that’s kind of an important thing that may or may not come up in your discussions about inflammatory arthritis associated with [inflammatory bowel disease],” he said.
Another example is a patient who is embarrassed attending social functions or wearing a swimsuit because of really bad psoriasis.
“These are the kinds of things that I’m suggesting you and I probably want to measure if we’re providing holistic care to rheumatology patients,” Dr. Curtis said.
The PROMIS tools provide a simple, user-friendly means for doing so in English, Spanish, and many other languages, he noted.
All the scales use the same 1-100 scoring range, which simplifies measurements. They are available for free by download and can be printed or used electronically for use in the office, at home, on the web, and via smartphone.
The NIH developed the PROMIS tools several years ago and validated them for multiple chronic disease populations, Dr. Curtis said, adding that the tools include multiple individual domains and overall “profiles” of varying lengths.
Most are fixed-length scales that are between 4 and 10 questions and can be completed within 30-60 seconds per scale, so several scales can be completed within 5-10 minutes.
However, some scales are longer and provide greater detail.
“The nice thing is that if you ask a few more questions you can get more precise information – there’s more of a floor and ceiling. You can detect people who do really well. You can distinguish between the marathon runners and the 5K-ers and the people who can walk 2 miles but aren’t going to run a race,” he explained.
Further, the PROMIS tools, like the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), are benchmarked against the U.S. adult population, allowing for assessment of how a specific drug or treatment “impacts your arthritis patient on a scale that would also be relevant for somebody who doesn’t have arthritis, they have diabetes.”
The metrics and scales are the same, and that can be helpful when trying to get a payer to pay for a particular drug, he said.
“None of these are rheumatology specific; this puts PROs into a language that can help rheumatology contend for the value of the care that we provide on a scale that would be relevant for any other chronic illness, even for nonrheumatology patients,” he explained.
In addition, minimally important differences (group mean change of about 2-3 units) and minimally clinical important differences for individuals (5 units) have been established.
“So we know what the numbers mean, and this is true for all of the scales,” he said.
PROMIS tools also include computer-adaptive testing (CAT) versions, which helps to personalize the scales to provide more precise information for a given patient and eliminate irrelevant information.
Of note, PROMIS health measures are among the data that can be tracked on a smartphone using Arthritis Power, an arthritis research registry developed with the help of a recent infrastructure grant awarded to the Center for Education and Research and Therapeutics of Musculoskeletal Disorders at UAB, Dr. Curtis said.
The measures were also shown in the AWARE study to track closely with other measures, including the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and with patient improvement on therapy.
“So these PROMIS scores are tracking with things that you and I are familiar with ... and it looks like these scores are faithfully tracking, over time, patients getting better on therapies that we would expect them to,” he said. “I think this is additional validation – not just from the National Institutes of Health and a decade of research by lots of different groups, but in our own field – that these actually correlate with disease activity ... and that when you start an effective therapy like a [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] they’re going to improve as you would anticipate.”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. –
The PROMIS tools – which like most patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement tools are designed to evaluate and monitor physical, mental, and social health – can be used both for the general population and for individuals living with chronic conditions, Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology.
The tools take a deeper dive into various symptoms and their effects; for instance, with respect to physical health, they measure fatigue, physical function, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference – the extent to which pain “messes your patient’s life up,” explained Dr. Curtis, who also is codirector of the UAB Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit.
Additional physical health domains that PROs measure include dyspnea, gastrointestinal symptoms, pain behavior, pain quality, sexual function, and sleep-related impairment.
These are “things that, honestly, we don’t talk about much as a field, but absolutely affect patients with autoimmune diseases,” he said. “You know, sexual function – that doesn’t come up in my practice spontaneously very often, but there are ways you can quantify that, and for many patients that’s actually a big deal.”
The domains measured by PROMIS tools for mental health look at anxiety and depression, but also delve into alcohol use, anger, cognitive function, life satisfaction, self-efficacy for managing chronic conditions, substance use, and more. The domains for social health address ability to participate in social roles and activities, as well as companionship, satisfaction with social roles and activity, social isolation, and social support.
“You can’t go on a hike with friends [and] be far from a bathroom, because you have bad arthritis and you have Crohn’s disease. Well, that’s kind of an important thing that may or may not come up in your discussions about inflammatory arthritis associated with [inflammatory bowel disease],” he said.
Another example is a patient who is embarrassed attending social functions or wearing a swimsuit because of really bad psoriasis.
“These are the kinds of things that I’m suggesting you and I probably want to measure if we’re providing holistic care to rheumatology patients,” Dr. Curtis said.
The PROMIS tools provide a simple, user-friendly means for doing so in English, Spanish, and many other languages, he noted.
All the scales use the same 1-100 scoring range, which simplifies measurements. They are available for free by download and can be printed or used electronically for use in the office, at home, on the web, and via smartphone.
The NIH developed the PROMIS tools several years ago and validated them for multiple chronic disease populations, Dr. Curtis said, adding that the tools include multiple individual domains and overall “profiles” of varying lengths.
Most are fixed-length scales that are between 4 and 10 questions and can be completed within 30-60 seconds per scale, so several scales can be completed within 5-10 minutes.
However, some scales are longer and provide greater detail.
“The nice thing is that if you ask a few more questions you can get more precise information – there’s more of a floor and ceiling. You can detect people who do really well. You can distinguish between the marathon runners and the 5K-ers and the people who can walk 2 miles but aren’t going to run a race,” he explained.
Further, the PROMIS tools, like the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), are benchmarked against the U.S. adult population, allowing for assessment of how a specific drug or treatment “impacts your arthritis patient on a scale that would also be relevant for somebody who doesn’t have arthritis, they have diabetes.”
The metrics and scales are the same, and that can be helpful when trying to get a payer to pay for a particular drug, he said.
“None of these are rheumatology specific; this puts PROs into a language that can help rheumatology contend for the value of the care that we provide on a scale that would be relevant for any other chronic illness, even for nonrheumatology patients,” he explained.
In addition, minimally important differences (group mean change of about 2-3 units) and minimally clinical important differences for individuals (5 units) have been established.
“So we know what the numbers mean, and this is true for all of the scales,” he said.
PROMIS tools also include computer-adaptive testing (CAT) versions, which helps to personalize the scales to provide more precise information for a given patient and eliminate irrelevant information.
Of note, PROMIS health measures are among the data that can be tracked on a smartphone using Arthritis Power, an arthritis research registry developed with the help of a recent infrastructure grant awarded to the Center for Education and Research and Therapeutics of Musculoskeletal Disorders at UAB, Dr. Curtis said.
The measures were also shown in the AWARE study to track closely with other measures, including the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and with patient improvement on therapy.
“So these PROMIS scores are tracking with things that you and I are familiar with ... and it looks like these scores are faithfully tracking, over time, patients getting better on therapies that we would expect them to,” he said. “I think this is additional validation – not just from the National Institutes of Health and a decade of research by lots of different groups, but in our own field – that these actually correlate with disease activity ... and that when you start an effective therapy like a [tumor necrosis factor inhibitor] they’re going to improve as you would anticipate.”
Dr. Curtis reported funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also consulted for or received research grants from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CORRONA, Lilly, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM FSR 2019
Machine-learning model predicts anti-TNF nonresponse in RA patients
A machine-learning model that uses clinical profiles and genetic information has shown promise in predicting which rheumatoid arthritis patients respond to anti–tumor necrosis factor drugs in a patient population of European descent.
The model can “help up to 40% of European-descent anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments” when compared with the usual “trial-and-error practice,” according to the authors led by Yuanfang Guan, PhD, of the department of computational medicine and bioinformatics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The ability to accurately predict rheumatoid arthritis patients’ response to treatments would provide valuable information for optimal drug selection and would help potential nonresponders avoid drug expenses and side effects, such as an increased risk of infections, Dr. Guan and coauthors noted in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The investigators used a modeling technique called Gaussian process regression (GPR) to predict anti-TNF drug responses. “GPR is designed to predict the unknown dependent variable for any given independent variables based on known but noisy observations of the dependent and independent variables,” they explained.
The model they used won first place in the Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods: Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge, which used a crowd-based competition framework to develop a validated molecular predictor of anti-TNF response in RA.
The model was developed and cross-validated using 1,892 patients randomly selected from a training data set of 2,706 individuals of European ancestry compiled from 13 patient cohorts. All patients met 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA or were diagnosed by a board-certified rheumatologist. In addition, patients were required to have at least moderate disease activity at baseline, based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) greater than 3.2.
The research team also evaluated the model using an independent dataset of 680 patients from the CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions) study.
The model combined demographic, clinical, and genetic markers to predict patients’ changes in DAS28 24 months after their baseline assessment, and identify nonresponders to anti-TNF treatments, the authors explained.
“Specifically, the [model] predicts the changes in [DAS28] of patients who have taken 12 months of anti-TNF treatments, and also classifies the patients’ responses based on the EULAR response metric,” they wrote.
Results showed that, in cross-validation tests, the model predicted changes in DAS28 with a correlation coefficient of 0.406, correctly classifying responses of 78% of subjects, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of about 0.66.
In the independent test, the method achieved a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.393 in predicting the change in DAS28.
Genetic SNP biomarkers provided a small additional contribution to the prediction on top of the clinical models, the authors noted.
“Compared to traditional trial-and-error practice, our model can help up to 40% of European-descent anti-TNF nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments. The model performance is even comparable to some published models utilizing additional biomarker data, whose AUROC ranges from 55% to 74% over various testing sets,” they wrote.
The GPR model has practical advantages in clinical application, unlike many sophisticated machine-learning algorithms, according to the authors. For example, GPR is a well-studied statistical model, its similarity-modeling approach is intuitive, and its results are easy to interpret.
“Our GPR model can predict subpopulations that do not respond to the treatment. This can help physicians tailor treatments for individual patients based on their conditions. ... The model can also estimate confidence intervals for its predictions, allowing physicians to judge how confident the predictions are,” the study authors wrote.
However, they cautioned that because the model was built using patients of European descent they did not expect it to achieve a similar performance in other populations. “Extension of the model over other populations requires new patient data and separate feature selection.”
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several of the researchers reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical or technology companies.
SOURCE: Guan Y et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1002/art.41056.
A machine-learning model that uses clinical profiles and genetic information has shown promise in predicting which rheumatoid arthritis patients respond to anti–tumor necrosis factor drugs in a patient population of European descent.
The model can “help up to 40% of European-descent anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments” when compared with the usual “trial-and-error practice,” according to the authors led by Yuanfang Guan, PhD, of the department of computational medicine and bioinformatics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The ability to accurately predict rheumatoid arthritis patients’ response to treatments would provide valuable information for optimal drug selection and would help potential nonresponders avoid drug expenses and side effects, such as an increased risk of infections, Dr. Guan and coauthors noted in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The investigators used a modeling technique called Gaussian process regression (GPR) to predict anti-TNF drug responses. “GPR is designed to predict the unknown dependent variable for any given independent variables based on known but noisy observations of the dependent and independent variables,” they explained.
The model they used won first place in the Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods: Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge, which used a crowd-based competition framework to develop a validated molecular predictor of anti-TNF response in RA.
The model was developed and cross-validated using 1,892 patients randomly selected from a training data set of 2,706 individuals of European ancestry compiled from 13 patient cohorts. All patients met 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA or were diagnosed by a board-certified rheumatologist. In addition, patients were required to have at least moderate disease activity at baseline, based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) greater than 3.2.
The research team also evaluated the model using an independent dataset of 680 patients from the CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions) study.
The model combined demographic, clinical, and genetic markers to predict patients’ changes in DAS28 24 months after their baseline assessment, and identify nonresponders to anti-TNF treatments, the authors explained.
“Specifically, the [model] predicts the changes in [DAS28] of patients who have taken 12 months of anti-TNF treatments, and also classifies the patients’ responses based on the EULAR response metric,” they wrote.
Results showed that, in cross-validation tests, the model predicted changes in DAS28 with a correlation coefficient of 0.406, correctly classifying responses of 78% of subjects, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of about 0.66.
In the independent test, the method achieved a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.393 in predicting the change in DAS28.
Genetic SNP biomarkers provided a small additional contribution to the prediction on top of the clinical models, the authors noted.
“Compared to traditional trial-and-error practice, our model can help up to 40% of European-descent anti-TNF nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments. The model performance is even comparable to some published models utilizing additional biomarker data, whose AUROC ranges from 55% to 74% over various testing sets,” they wrote.
The GPR model has practical advantages in clinical application, unlike many sophisticated machine-learning algorithms, according to the authors. For example, GPR is a well-studied statistical model, its similarity-modeling approach is intuitive, and its results are easy to interpret.
“Our GPR model can predict subpopulations that do not respond to the treatment. This can help physicians tailor treatments for individual patients based on their conditions. ... The model can also estimate confidence intervals for its predictions, allowing physicians to judge how confident the predictions are,” the study authors wrote.
However, they cautioned that because the model was built using patients of European descent they did not expect it to achieve a similar performance in other populations. “Extension of the model over other populations requires new patient data and separate feature selection.”
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several of the researchers reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical or technology companies.
SOURCE: Guan Y et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1002/art.41056.
A machine-learning model that uses clinical profiles and genetic information has shown promise in predicting which rheumatoid arthritis patients respond to anti–tumor necrosis factor drugs in a patient population of European descent.
The model can “help up to 40% of European-descent anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments” when compared with the usual “trial-and-error practice,” according to the authors led by Yuanfang Guan, PhD, of the department of computational medicine and bioinformatics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The ability to accurately predict rheumatoid arthritis patients’ response to treatments would provide valuable information for optimal drug selection and would help potential nonresponders avoid drug expenses and side effects, such as an increased risk of infections, Dr. Guan and coauthors noted in Arthritis & Rheumatology.
The investigators used a modeling technique called Gaussian process regression (GPR) to predict anti-TNF drug responses. “GPR is designed to predict the unknown dependent variable for any given independent variables based on known but noisy observations of the dependent and independent variables,” they explained.
The model they used won first place in the Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods: Rheumatoid Arthritis Responder Challenge, which used a crowd-based competition framework to develop a validated molecular predictor of anti-TNF response in RA.
The model was developed and cross-validated using 1,892 patients randomly selected from a training data set of 2,706 individuals of European ancestry compiled from 13 patient cohorts. All patients met 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA or were diagnosed by a board-certified rheumatologist. In addition, patients were required to have at least moderate disease activity at baseline, based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) greater than 3.2.
The research team also evaluated the model using an independent dataset of 680 patients from the CERTAIN (Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions) study.
The model combined demographic, clinical, and genetic markers to predict patients’ changes in DAS28 24 months after their baseline assessment, and identify nonresponders to anti-TNF treatments, the authors explained.
“Specifically, the [model] predicts the changes in [DAS28] of patients who have taken 12 months of anti-TNF treatments, and also classifies the patients’ responses based on the EULAR response metric,” they wrote.
Results showed that, in cross-validation tests, the model predicted changes in DAS28 with a correlation coefficient of 0.406, correctly classifying responses of 78% of subjects, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of about 0.66.
In the independent test, the method achieved a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.393 in predicting the change in DAS28.
Genetic SNP biomarkers provided a small additional contribution to the prediction on top of the clinical models, the authors noted.
“Compared to traditional trial-and-error practice, our model can help up to 40% of European-descent anti-TNF nonresponders avoid ineffective treatments. The model performance is even comparable to some published models utilizing additional biomarker data, whose AUROC ranges from 55% to 74% over various testing sets,” they wrote.
The GPR model has practical advantages in clinical application, unlike many sophisticated machine-learning algorithms, according to the authors. For example, GPR is a well-studied statistical model, its similarity-modeling approach is intuitive, and its results are easy to interpret.
“Our GPR model can predict subpopulations that do not respond to the treatment. This can help physicians tailor treatments for individual patients based on their conditions. ... The model can also estimate confidence intervals for its predictions, allowing physicians to judge how confident the predictions are,” the study authors wrote.
However, they cautioned that because the model was built using patients of European descent they did not expect it to achieve a similar performance in other populations. “Extension of the model over other populations requires new patient data and separate feature selection.”
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several of the researchers reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical or technology companies.
SOURCE: Guan Y et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul 24. doi: 10.1002/art.41056.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
FDA finds increased blood clot, death risk associated with Xeljanz
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert approving new boxed warnings about increased blood clot and mortality risk associated with the 10-mg, twice-daily dose of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), as well as a new limitation for patients with ulcerative colitis receiving the medication.
Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was first approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An indication for psoriatic arthritis was added in 2017, and one for ulcerative colitis was added in 2018.
After the 2012 approval, the FDA commissioned a postmarketing trial in patients with RA on background methotrexate to evaluate safety and the risk of cancer, heart-related events, and infection. The 5- and 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily doses are being analyzed in an ongoing study in comparison with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
An interim analysis of the trial’s data, as of January 2019, found an increased risk of blood clots and death in patients receiving 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily, compared with the TNF inhibitor and the twice-daily, 5-mg dose. Overall, there were 19 cases of blood clots in the lung out of 3,884 patient-years of follow-up in patients who received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 3 cases out of 3,982 patient-years in patients who received TNF inhibitors. There were also 45 cases of death from all causes during follow-up for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 25 cases in patients who received TNF inhibitors.
Patients with symptoms of thrombosis also receiving tofacitinib should immediately discontinue the medication. Tofacitinib should not be given to patients with ulcerative colitis unless they are not treated effectively with a TNF inhibitor or do not tolerate TNF inhibitors; ulcerative colitis patients should receive the lowest effective dosage, and if the higher dosage is necessary, it should be limited to the shortest amount of time possible, the FDA noted.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert approving new boxed warnings about increased blood clot and mortality risk associated with the 10-mg, twice-daily dose of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), as well as a new limitation for patients with ulcerative colitis receiving the medication.
Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was first approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An indication for psoriatic arthritis was added in 2017, and one for ulcerative colitis was added in 2018.
After the 2012 approval, the FDA commissioned a postmarketing trial in patients with RA on background methotrexate to evaluate safety and the risk of cancer, heart-related events, and infection. The 5- and 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily doses are being analyzed in an ongoing study in comparison with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
An interim analysis of the trial’s data, as of January 2019, found an increased risk of blood clots and death in patients receiving 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily, compared with the TNF inhibitor and the twice-daily, 5-mg dose. Overall, there were 19 cases of blood clots in the lung out of 3,884 patient-years of follow-up in patients who received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 3 cases out of 3,982 patient-years in patients who received TNF inhibitors. There were also 45 cases of death from all causes during follow-up for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 25 cases in patients who received TNF inhibitors.
Patients with symptoms of thrombosis also receiving tofacitinib should immediately discontinue the medication. Tofacitinib should not be given to patients with ulcerative colitis unless they are not treated effectively with a TNF inhibitor or do not tolerate TNF inhibitors; ulcerative colitis patients should receive the lowest effective dosage, and if the higher dosage is necessary, it should be limited to the shortest amount of time possible, the FDA noted.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert approving new boxed warnings about increased blood clot and mortality risk associated with the 10-mg, twice-daily dose of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), as well as a new limitation for patients with ulcerative colitis receiving the medication.
Tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, was first approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An indication for psoriatic arthritis was added in 2017, and one for ulcerative colitis was added in 2018.
After the 2012 approval, the FDA commissioned a postmarketing trial in patients with RA on background methotrexate to evaluate safety and the risk of cancer, heart-related events, and infection. The 5- and 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily doses are being analyzed in an ongoing study in comparison with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
An interim analysis of the trial’s data, as of January 2019, found an increased risk of blood clots and death in patients receiving 10-mg tofacitinib twice daily, compared with the TNF inhibitor and the twice-daily, 5-mg dose. Overall, there were 19 cases of blood clots in the lung out of 3,884 patient-years of follow-up in patients who received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 3 cases out of 3,982 patient-years in patients who received TNF inhibitors. There were also 45 cases of death from all causes during follow-up for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily, compared with 25 cases in patients who received TNF inhibitors.
Patients with symptoms of thrombosis also receiving tofacitinib should immediately discontinue the medication. Tofacitinib should not be given to patients with ulcerative colitis unless they are not treated effectively with a TNF inhibitor or do not tolerate TNF inhibitors; ulcerative colitis patients should receive the lowest effective dosage, and if the higher dosage is necessary, it should be limited to the shortest amount of time possible, the FDA noted.
Hadlima approved as fourth adalimumab biosimilar in U.S.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Humira biosimilar Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd), making it the fourth adalimumab biosimilar approved in the United States, the agency announced.
Hadlima is approved for seven of the reference product’s indications, which include rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
The product will launch in the United States on June 30, 2023. Other FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilars – Amjevita (adalimunab-atto), Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) – similarly will not reach the U.S. market until 2023.
Hadlima is developed by Samsung Bioepis and commercialized by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co.
*This article was updated on July 24, 2019.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Humira biosimilar Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd), making it the fourth adalimumab biosimilar approved in the United States, the agency announced.
Hadlima is approved for seven of the reference product’s indications, which include rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
The product will launch in the United States on June 30, 2023. Other FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilars – Amjevita (adalimunab-atto), Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) – similarly will not reach the U.S. market until 2023.
Hadlima is developed by Samsung Bioepis and commercialized by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co.
*This article was updated on July 24, 2019.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Humira biosimilar Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd), making it the fourth adalimumab biosimilar approved in the United States, the agency announced.
Hadlima is approved for seven of the reference product’s indications, which include rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.
The product will launch in the United States on June 30, 2023. Other FDA-approved adalimumab biosimilars – Amjevita (adalimunab-atto), Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz) – similarly will not reach the U.S. market until 2023.
Hadlima is developed by Samsung Bioepis and commercialized by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co.
*This article was updated on July 24, 2019.
Filgotinib fares well in RA trial of inadequate methotrexate responders
MADRID – (cDMARD) in a phase 3 study.
The primary outcome results of the FINCH 1 study, which were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology, showed that significantly more patients treated with filgotinib than placebo were able to achieve 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20).
At week 12, an ACR20 response was achieved by 69.8% of 480 patients treated with filgotinib 100 mg/day, 76.6% of 475 treated with filgotinib 200 mg/day, and 49.9% of 475 given a matching daily placebo (P less than .0001 for both comparisons). Adalimumab (Humira; 40 mg every 2 weeks) was used as an active comparator in the trial, and 70.8% of 325 patients treated with this biologic drug achieved an ACR20.
Similar patterns were seen for the ACR50 and ACR70 responses: more than 50% of patients treated with filgotinib or adalimumab achieved an ACR50 versus 33.3% of patients treated with placebo. The ACR70 response rate was more than 30% in patients treated with either biologic, compared against 14.9% with placebo.
The percentages of patients in the filgotinib 100-mg, filgotinib 200-mg, adalimumab, and placebo arms who achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of 3.2 or less at 12 weeks were 38.8%, 49.9%, 43.4%, and 23.4%. At 24 weeks, the rates were 53.1%, 60.6%, 50.5%, and 33.7%.
At 12 weeks, analysis showed that filgotinib 200 mg was noninferior to adalimumab in achieving a DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less.
These study data, together with the results of two other phase 3 studies – FINCH 2 and FINCH 3 – will be used to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for the use of filgotinib in the treatment of RA later this year, the drug’s developer, Gilead Sciences, announced on July 1. Each of the trials has addressed a different population of RA patients; while FINCH 1 looked at inadequate responders to methotrexate, FINCH 2 looked at those with an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, and FINCH 3 recruited RA patients who were naive to methotrexate therapy.
FINCH 1 was a 1-year study, said presenting study investigator Bernard Combe, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier (France) University and head of the bone and joint diseases department at the university. A total of 1,759 patients were randomized and 1,755 received study treatment with filgotinib, adalimumab, or placebo in addition to methotrexate. Data for the first 24 weeks were presented.
Dr. Combe and coauthors used hierarchical statistical testing to first compare the 200-mg dose versus placebo for the primary endpoint, and then, if positive, the percentage of patients at 12 weeks achieving a DAS28-CRP score of 3.2 or less and the score at 12 weeks on the Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and then the DAS28-CRP again at 24 weeks. This was repeated with the 100-mg dose until finally noninferiority of the 200-mg dose versus adalimumab in DAS28-CRP at 12 weeks was tested.
Other findings included a significant reduction in radiographic progression at week 24 with both doses of filgotinib versus placebo; improvements in HAQ-DI and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores also were seen at 12 and 24 weeks.
“The selective JAK1 inhibitor filgotinib, at doses of 200 and 100 mg per day, led to significant improvement in symptoms of RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate,” Dr. Combe concluded. It “prevented radiographic progression, and improved physical function compared to placebo.”
Importantly, the drug was “well tolerated” and “a low frequency of venous thrombotic events, serious infections, and other adverse events of interest was observed.”
Commenting on the study during the Q&A session that followed Dr. Combe’s presentation, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, noted that the choice of DAS28-CRP was “very unusual” as an endpoint after the ACR20 as it’s “almost always an ACR50 or 70.” There was also a “very high placebo response.”
Dr. Combe responded that he “wasn’t so surprised by the high placebo response. You know that this has been shown previously in some other trials.” As to why, he noted that there was an ongoing analysis but also proposed two reasons: First, the geographic region – with more than 1,700 patients from all over the world included in the trial, there could be variation in the placebo responses. Second, methotrexate might still be having a minor effect when the trial started.
The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences in collaboration with Galapagos NV. Dr. Combe has received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Flexion. Dr. Combe is a shareholder in Novartis.
SOURCE: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-8. Abstract LB0001, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8676
MADRID – (cDMARD) in a phase 3 study.
The primary outcome results of the FINCH 1 study, which were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology, showed that significantly more patients treated with filgotinib than placebo were able to achieve 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20).
At week 12, an ACR20 response was achieved by 69.8% of 480 patients treated with filgotinib 100 mg/day, 76.6% of 475 treated with filgotinib 200 mg/day, and 49.9% of 475 given a matching daily placebo (P less than .0001 for both comparisons). Adalimumab (Humira; 40 mg every 2 weeks) was used as an active comparator in the trial, and 70.8% of 325 patients treated with this biologic drug achieved an ACR20.
Similar patterns were seen for the ACR50 and ACR70 responses: more than 50% of patients treated with filgotinib or adalimumab achieved an ACR50 versus 33.3% of patients treated with placebo. The ACR70 response rate was more than 30% in patients treated with either biologic, compared against 14.9% with placebo.
The percentages of patients in the filgotinib 100-mg, filgotinib 200-mg, adalimumab, and placebo arms who achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of 3.2 or less at 12 weeks were 38.8%, 49.9%, 43.4%, and 23.4%. At 24 weeks, the rates were 53.1%, 60.6%, 50.5%, and 33.7%.
At 12 weeks, analysis showed that filgotinib 200 mg was noninferior to adalimumab in achieving a DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less.
These study data, together with the results of two other phase 3 studies – FINCH 2 and FINCH 3 – will be used to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for the use of filgotinib in the treatment of RA later this year, the drug’s developer, Gilead Sciences, announced on July 1. Each of the trials has addressed a different population of RA patients; while FINCH 1 looked at inadequate responders to methotrexate, FINCH 2 looked at those with an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, and FINCH 3 recruited RA patients who were naive to methotrexate therapy.
FINCH 1 was a 1-year study, said presenting study investigator Bernard Combe, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier (France) University and head of the bone and joint diseases department at the university. A total of 1,759 patients were randomized and 1,755 received study treatment with filgotinib, adalimumab, or placebo in addition to methotrexate. Data for the first 24 weeks were presented.
Dr. Combe and coauthors used hierarchical statistical testing to first compare the 200-mg dose versus placebo for the primary endpoint, and then, if positive, the percentage of patients at 12 weeks achieving a DAS28-CRP score of 3.2 or less and the score at 12 weeks on the Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and then the DAS28-CRP again at 24 weeks. This was repeated with the 100-mg dose until finally noninferiority of the 200-mg dose versus adalimumab in DAS28-CRP at 12 weeks was tested.
Other findings included a significant reduction in radiographic progression at week 24 with both doses of filgotinib versus placebo; improvements in HAQ-DI and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores also were seen at 12 and 24 weeks.
“The selective JAK1 inhibitor filgotinib, at doses of 200 and 100 mg per day, led to significant improvement in symptoms of RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate,” Dr. Combe concluded. It “prevented radiographic progression, and improved physical function compared to placebo.”
Importantly, the drug was “well tolerated” and “a low frequency of venous thrombotic events, serious infections, and other adverse events of interest was observed.”
Commenting on the study during the Q&A session that followed Dr. Combe’s presentation, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, noted that the choice of DAS28-CRP was “very unusual” as an endpoint after the ACR20 as it’s “almost always an ACR50 or 70.” There was also a “very high placebo response.”
Dr. Combe responded that he “wasn’t so surprised by the high placebo response. You know that this has been shown previously in some other trials.” As to why, he noted that there was an ongoing analysis but also proposed two reasons: First, the geographic region – with more than 1,700 patients from all over the world included in the trial, there could be variation in the placebo responses. Second, methotrexate might still be having a minor effect when the trial started.
The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences in collaboration with Galapagos NV. Dr. Combe has received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Flexion. Dr. Combe is a shareholder in Novartis.
SOURCE: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-8. Abstract LB0001, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8676
MADRID – (cDMARD) in a phase 3 study.
The primary outcome results of the FINCH 1 study, which were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology, showed that significantly more patients treated with filgotinib than placebo were able to achieve 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20).
At week 12, an ACR20 response was achieved by 69.8% of 480 patients treated with filgotinib 100 mg/day, 76.6% of 475 treated with filgotinib 200 mg/day, and 49.9% of 475 given a matching daily placebo (P less than .0001 for both comparisons). Adalimumab (Humira; 40 mg every 2 weeks) was used as an active comparator in the trial, and 70.8% of 325 patients treated with this biologic drug achieved an ACR20.
Similar patterns were seen for the ACR50 and ACR70 responses: more than 50% of patients treated with filgotinib or adalimumab achieved an ACR50 versus 33.3% of patients treated with placebo. The ACR70 response rate was more than 30% in patients treated with either biologic, compared against 14.9% with placebo.
The percentages of patients in the filgotinib 100-mg, filgotinib 200-mg, adalimumab, and placebo arms who achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of 3.2 or less at 12 weeks were 38.8%, 49.9%, 43.4%, and 23.4%. At 24 weeks, the rates were 53.1%, 60.6%, 50.5%, and 33.7%.
At 12 weeks, analysis showed that filgotinib 200 mg was noninferior to adalimumab in achieving a DAS28-CRP of 3.2 or less.
These study data, together with the results of two other phase 3 studies – FINCH 2 and FINCH 3 – will be used to submit a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration for the use of filgotinib in the treatment of RA later this year, the drug’s developer, Gilead Sciences, announced on July 1. Each of the trials has addressed a different population of RA patients; while FINCH 1 looked at inadequate responders to methotrexate, FINCH 2 looked at those with an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, and FINCH 3 recruited RA patients who were naive to methotrexate therapy.
FINCH 1 was a 1-year study, said presenting study investigator Bernard Combe, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Montpellier (France) University and head of the bone and joint diseases department at the university. A total of 1,759 patients were randomized and 1,755 received study treatment with filgotinib, adalimumab, or placebo in addition to methotrexate. Data for the first 24 weeks were presented.
Dr. Combe and coauthors used hierarchical statistical testing to first compare the 200-mg dose versus placebo for the primary endpoint, and then, if positive, the percentage of patients at 12 weeks achieving a DAS28-CRP score of 3.2 or less and the score at 12 weeks on the Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and then the DAS28-CRP again at 24 weeks. This was repeated with the 100-mg dose until finally noninferiority of the 200-mg dose versus adalimumab in DAS28-CRP at 12 weeks was tested.
Other findings included a significant reduction in radiographic progression at week 24 with both doses of filgotinib versus placebo; improvements in HAQ-DI and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores also were seen at 12 and 24 weeks.
“The selective JAK1 inhibitor filgotinib, at doses of 200 and 100 mg per day, led to significant improvement in symptoms of RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate,” Dr. Combe concluded. It “prevented radiographic progression, and improved physical function compared to placebo.”
Importantly, the drug was “well tolerated” and “a low frequency of venous thrombotic events, serious infections, and other adverse events of interest was observed.”
Commenting on the study during the Q&A session that followed Dr. Combe’s presentation, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, noted that the choice of DAS28-CRP was “very unusual” as an endpoint after the ACR20 as it’s “almost always an ACR50 or 70.” There was also a “very high placebo response.”
Dr. Combe responded that he “wasn’t so surprised by the high placebo response. You know that this has been shown previously in some other trials.” As to why, he noted that there was an ongoing analysis but also proposed two reasons: First, the geographic region – with more than 1,700 patients from all over the world included in the trial, there could be variation in the placebo responses. Second, methotrexate might still be having a minor effect when the trial started.
The study was sponsored by Gilead Sciences in collaboration with Galapagos NV. Dr. Combe has received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Flexion. Dr. Combe is a shareholder in Novartis.
SOURCE: Combe B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-8. Abstract LB0001, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8676
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Abatacept response in seropositive RA may be linked to HLA gene
MADRID – according to results from the “exploratory” Early AMPLE study.
Clinical responses seen in the study were higher in the abatacept (Orencia) versus adalimumab group, study investigator Vivian P. Bykerk, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), as well as ACR50 and ACR70 responses, were achieved by 83%, 70%, and 48% of abatacept-treated patients and by 63%, 45%, and 30% of adalimumab-treated patients.
Numerically higher percentages of patients who were treated with abatacept and had the shared epitope in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DRB1 (HLA-DRB1) allele achieved ACR20-level improvement when compared against treatment with adalimumab, and the same was seen for ACR50 and ACR70 response rates.
“The results we saw were clearly driven by the presence of the shared epitope, and there may be a differential benefit by treating the shared epitope in early RA patients with abatacept, compared with adalimumab,” said Dr. Bykerk, who is director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Center of Excellence at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.
The investigators also observed numerically higher responses on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index as well as the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein.
The shared epitope is a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II protein receptor encoded by some alleles of the HLA-DRB1 gene. It’s found in the majority (70%–80%) of RA patients who are seropositive for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), and it’s linked to joint destruction.
Prior work has suggested that abatacept may be more effective in RA patients who have the shared epitope than in those who do not, Dr. Bykerk explained.
Early AMPLE (Abatacept versus adalimumab comparison in biologic naive RA subjects with background methotrexate) was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled study that ran for 24 weeks. It’s aim was to look at changes in immune cells and proteins in response to treatment with abatacept and adalimumab, which were both given in combination with methotrexate, and in relation to the presence or absence of the shared epitope.
Since abatacept works directly on T-cell activation, the investigators hypothesized that it should have a greater effect than other agents that work further downstream, such as the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab.
A total of 80 patients who had RA for less than 1 year and had not previously been treated with a biologic were recruited; all were positive for ACPA, specifically anti–cyclic citrullinated protein 2 (anti-CCP2) antibodies, and 76% had the shared epitope.
“Of note, we observed higher ACPA levels in the shared epitope group, and this requires further observation and understanding,” Dr. Bykerk said. The mean level of anti-CCP2 antibodies in patients with and without the shared epitope were a respective 1,216 U/mL and 368 U/mL.
Patients had been randomized 1:1 to receive either abatacept (125 mg given subcutaneously every week) or adalimumab (40 mg given subcutaneously every 2 weeks) on top of continuing weekly treatment with oral methotrexate.
“For a long time, we’ve wanted to try to match a therapy’s mechanism of action to what’s going on with the patient,” Dr. Bykerk commented in an interview. “Clinical phenotyping is usually not good enough, and we are always guessing,” she added. Plus, she noted, RA treatments tend to be used in the order in which they were approved rather than there being a rationale for using one over another based on their suitability in a particular situation.
The Early AMPLE data “are a first step towards the rational choice of therapy that might be more likely to be sustainable in a patient for a longer period of time and actually continue to modify the disease,” Dr. Bykerk suggested.
TNF inhibitors “work across the board in early disease,” she observed. “The problem is that after a year or two that only 44% of people are left on their first TNF, and why is that?” Reasons for the loss of effect are not known. Using a drug that works in a different way might prove to be the answer, such as seen here with abatacept in seropositive patients with the shared episode, but further studies will be needed to validate the Early AMPLE findings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the study. Dr. Bykerk disclosed receiving grant or research support paid to her institution from BMS, as well as Amgen and UCB. She also disclosed acting as a consultant to BMS and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were employees and shareholders in BMS, or had acted as consultants to BMS.
SOURCE: Rigby W et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):263-4. Abstract LB0008 , doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8668.
MADRID – according to results from the “exploratory” Early AMPLE study.
Clinical responses seen in the study were higher in the abatacept (Orencia) versus adalimumab group, study investigator Vivian P. Bykerk, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), as well as ACR50 and ACR70 responses, were achieved by 83%, 70%, and 48% of abatacept-treated patients and by 63%, 45%, and 30% of adalimumab-treated patients.
Numerically higher percentages of patients who were treated with abatacept and had the shared epitope in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DRB1 (HLA-DRB1) allele achieved ACR20-level improvement when compared against treatment with adalimumab, and the same was seen for ACR50 and ACR70 response rates.
“The results we saw were clearly driven by the presence of the shared epitope, and there may be a differential benefit by treating the shared epitope in early RA patients with abatacept, compared with adalimumab,” said Dr. Bykerk, who is director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Center of Excellence at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.
The investigators also observed numerically higher responses on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index as well as the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein.
The shared epitope is a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II protein receptor encoded by some alleles of the HLA-DRB1 gene. It’s found in the majority (70%–80%) of RA patients who are seropositive for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), and it’s linked to joint destruction.
Prior work has suggested that abatacept may be more effective in RA patients who have the shared epitope than in those who do not, Dr. Bykerk explained.
Early AMPLE (Abatacept versus adalimumab comparison in biologic naive RA subjects with background methotrexate) was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled study that ran for 24 weeks. It’s aim was to look at changes in immune cells and proteins in response to treatment with abatacept and adalimumab, which were both given in combination with methotrexate, and in relation to the presence or absence of the shared epitope.
Since abatacept works directly on T-cell activation, the investigators hypothesized that it should have a greater effect than other agents that work further downstream, such as the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab.
A total of 80 patients who had RA for less than 1 year and had not previously been treated with a biologic were recruited; all were positive for ACPA, specifically anti–cyclic citrullinated protein 2 (anti-CCP2) antibodies, and 76% had the shared epitope.
“Of note, we observed higher ACPA levels in the shared epitope group, and this requires further observation and understanding,” Dr. Bykerk said. The mean level of anti-CCP2 antibodies in patients with and without the shared epitope were a respective 1,216 U/mL and 368 U/mL.
Patients had been randomized 1:1 to receive either abatacept (125 mg given subcutaneously every week) or adalimumab (40 mg given subcutaneously every 2 weeks) on top of continuing weekly treatment with oral methotrexate.
“For a long time, we’ve wanted to try to match a therapy’s mechanism of action to what’s going on with the patient,” Dr. Bykerk commented in an interview. “Clinical phenotyping is usually not good enough, and we are always guessing,” she added. Plus, she noted, RA treatments tend to be used in the order in which they were approved rather than there being a rationale for using one over another based on their suitability in a particular situation.
The Early AMPLE data “are a first step towards the rational choice of therapy that might be more likely to be sustainable in a patient for a longer period of time and actually continue to modify the disease,” Dr. Bykerk suggested.
TNF inhibitors “work across the board in early disease,” she observed. “The problem is that after a year or two that only 44% of people are left on their first TNF, and why is that?” Reasons for the loss of effect are not known. Using a drug that works in a different way might prove to be the answer, such as seen here with abatacept in seropositive patients with the shared episode, but further studies will be needed to validate the Early AMPLE findings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the study. Dr. Bykerk disclosed receiving grant or research support paid to her institution from BMS, as well as Amgen and UCB. She also disclosed acting as a consultant to BMS and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were employees and shareholders in BMS, or had acted as consultants to BMS.
SOURCE: Rigby W et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):263-4. Abstract LB0008 , doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8668.
MADRID – according to results from the “exploratory” Early AMPLE study.
Clinical responses seen in the study were higher in the abatacept (Orencia) versus adalimumab group, study investigator Vivian P. Bykerk, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), as well as ACR50 and ACR70 responses, were achieved by 83%, 70%, and 48% of abatacept-treated patients and by 63%, 45%, and 30% of adalimumab-treated patients.
Numerically higher percentages of patients who were treated with abatacept and had the shared epitope in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DRB1 (HLA-DRB1) allele achieved ACR20-level improvement when compared against treatment with adalimumab, and the same was seen for ACR50 and ACR70 response rates.
“The results we saw were clearly driven by the presence of the shared epitope, and there may be a differential benefit by treating the shared epitope in early RA patients with abatacept, compared with adalimumab,” said Dr. Bykerk, who is director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Center of Excellence at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.
The investigators also observed numerically higher responses on the Simplified Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index as well as the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein.
The shared epitope is a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II protein receptor encoded by some alleles of the HLA-DRB1 gene. It’s found in the majority (70%–80%) of RA patients who are seropositive for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), and it’s linked to joint destruction.
Prior work has suggested that abatacept may be more effective in RA patients who have the shared epitope than in those who do not, Dr. Bykerk explained.
Early AMPLE (Abatacept versus adalimumab comparison in biologic naive RA subjects with background methotrexate) was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled study that ran for 24 weeks. It’s aim was to look at changes in immune cells and proteins in response to treatment with abatacept and adalimumab, which were both given in combination with methotrexate, and in relation to the presence or absence of the shared epitope.
Since abatacept works directly on T-cell activation, the investigators hypothesized that it should have a greater effect than other agents that work further downstream, such as the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab.
A total of 80 patients who had RA for less than 1 year and had not previously been treated with a biologic were recruited; all were positive for ACPA, specifically anti–cyclic citrullinated protein 2 (anti-CCP2) antibodies, and 76% had the shared epitope.
“Of note, we observed higher ACPA levels in the shared epitope group, and this requires further observation and understanding,” Dr. Bykerk said. The mean level of anti-CCP2 antibodies in patients with and without the shared epitope were a respective 1,216 U/mL and 368 U/mL.
Patients had been randomized 1:1 to receive either abatacept (125 mg given subcutaneously every week) or adalimumab (40 mg given subcutaneously every 2 weeks) on top of continuing weekly treatment with oral methotrexate.
“For a long time, we’ve wanted to try to match a therapy’s mechanism of action to what’s going on with the patient,” Dr. Bykerk commented in an interview. “Clinical phenotyping is usually not good enough, and we are always guessing,” she added. Plus, she noted, RA treatments tend to be used in the order in which they were approved rather than there being a rationale for using one over another based on their suitability in a particular situation.
The Early AMPLE data “are a first step towards the rational choice of therapy that might be more likely to be sustainable in a patient for a longer period of time and actually continue to modify the disease,” Dr. Bykerk suggested.
TNF inhibitors “work across the board in early disease,” she observed. “The problem is that after a year or two that only 44% of people are left on their first TNF, and why is that?” Reasons for the loss of effect are not known. Using a drug that works in a different way might prove to be the answer, such as seen here with abatacept in seropositive patients with the shared episode, but further studies will be needed to validate the Early AMPLE findings.
Bristol-Myers Squibb sponsored the study. Dr. Bykerk disclosed receiving grant or research support paid to her institution from BMS, as well as Amgen and UCB. She also disclosed acting as a consultant to BMS and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Several coauthors were employees and shareholders in BMS, or had acted as consultants to BMS.
SOURCE: Rigby W et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):263-4. Abstract LB0008 , doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8668.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2019 Congress
Recognize and assess RA fatigue routinely, rheumatology experts urge
MADRID – Fatigue is one of the most frequent features of rheumatoid arthritis, and it needs to be assessed and addressed, several leading rheumatology experts urged at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Fatigue is an outcome of outstanding importance for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and therefore it should be an outcome of outstanding importance for clinicians who take care of these patients,” said José António Pereira da Silva, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) during a clinical science session dedicated to the topic.
“Fatigue is described as being significant by as many as 40%-80% of all patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and described as being severe by 41%-49% of these patients according to different studies,” Dr. da Silva said.
“The impact upon the quality of life from the patients’ perspective is quite varied but always rather important, if not ‘dramatic,’ ” Dr. da Silva said. Fatigue needs to be part of treatment targets alongside disease activity and thus regularly measured, he added.
The problem of fatigue
The problem, however, is that fatigue is such a complex construct, observed James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London. “It’s definitely multifactorial in origin; it’s a combination of inflammatory disease, psychosocial situations, and comorbidity.”
Moreover, said Dr. Galloway, “what people describe as fatigue is multidimensional; it’s not just how well you sleep, but how much energy you have, and it’s also how motivated you are.” The fatigue that accompanies RA is different from the fatigue that is experienced in daily life, he noted, and it has a huge impact on patients’ lives.
Determining the cause of fatigue can be challenging, said Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle (England) University.
“Fatigue is a syndrome that often coexists with other symptoms, and there may be different type of fatigue,” Dr. Ng said. He noted that there were many potential underlying biological mechanisms, but the most studied so far is inflammation. Fatigue is probably driven, at least in part, by “sickness behavior” and there are frequent associations between fatigue and chronic inflammatory conditions such as RA and Sjögren’s syndrome.
“I think the role of conventional inflammatory mechanisms, at least in chronic fatigue in chronic conditions, remains unclear,” Dr. Ng added. “The biological systems, for example the vagus nerve, that regulate the immune system may play key roles in fatigue, especially in chronic inflammatory states.”
Whatever the underlying mechanism, it’s clear that there are multiple factors at play that need addressing if fatigue is to be properly addressed in the clinic. Dr. da Silva unveiled a new path analysis model that will be published in a future issue of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology that showed how disease activity, pain, disability, sleep disturbance, and depression might all interlink to account for fatigue in patients with RA.
Young or old, fatigue is a prominent, persistent symptom
Fatigue is not just a problem in older adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, as Ellen Dalen Arnstad, MD, pointed out in a separate session at the congress. Younger adults and adolescents are also often affected, as demonstrated by data she presented from an 18-year follow-up study of individuals with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
An oft-used definition of fatigue, she said was “a persistent, overwhelming sense of tiredness, weakness, and exhaustion.” This results in “decreased capacity of physical function or mental work and is unrelieved by sleep or rests.”
Dr. Arnstad, a pediatric rheumatologist at the Hospital of Levanger in Norway and PhD student at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, presented data from the Nordic JIA study of 377 subjects who were assessed for fatigue. These showed that there were higher levels of fatigue among participants with active disease, pain, and self-reported health problems. The mean Fatigue Severity Scale score was 3.2 overall, with a higher score in females (3.5) versus males (2.5).
“We found highest mean fatigue scores among those with bad physical and mental health,” Dr. Arnstad reported. Just over a quarter (26%) of patients had severe fatigue, which was defined as a score of 4 or more.
“Fatigue is a prominent symptom in JIA after 18 years of disease duration,” and it “should be measured in a long-term follow-up, both in clinical and research settings,” Dr. Arnstad said.
How should fatigue in RA be assessed?
“Fatigue is recognized by OMERACT [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group] as being one of the measured outcome factors in rheumatoid arthritis, one that we should all be taking care of,” Dr. da Silva said. It was added alongside the core set of measures that should be used in all trials “wherever possible.”
So how should fatigue be measured in practice? There are lots of instruments available. Indeed, Dr. da Silva and associates recently counted more than 12, but there is no consensus and no guidelines on which should be used.
“We propose to use a single-item instrument as a screening tool, like the BRAF NRS [Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale] or RAID-F [Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease–Fatigue domain], which would be supplemented by additional multidimensional assessments if significant levels of fatigue are identified,” he said in an interview. “This will be particularly useful when the aims are to explore causality of fatigue or the efficacy of an intervention.”
Dr. da Silva noted after his presentation that the RAID-F score is routinely used at his practice. “It’s an extremely useful instrument in trying to assess how the patient is dealing with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. He emphasized that fatigue needed to be considered separately from disease activity and that “it should be part of treatment targets and it should be regularly measured in both research and clinical practice.”
How can fatigue in RA be treated?
When faced with a patient with RA who is experiencing fatigue, it’s important to take a full history and try to determine the cause or contributing factors, Dr. Galloway advised. “I think it’s really important to [take a history of this] specific symptom in the same way you take a history of articular pain.” Consider the onset of fatigue, for example. Is it sudden or linked to a particular stressor or life event, or has its development been more gradual? What’s been the clinical course, duration, and daily pattern? Are there any factors that might alleviate it or exacerbate it? What’s the impact on the patient’s daily life – both in terms of work and social participation?
Treating RA more effectively might help, “but that is unlikely to be sufficient,” Dr. Galloway said, observing that “leaving uncontrolled inflammation is bad, but, in 2019, more inflammation is probably not the solution to fatigue.” Instead, he suggested looking for and treating comorbidities that might be contributing to the fatigue, such as anemia, endocrine or cardiac disease, or perhaps sleep apnea or depression, among others.
“I would discourage the prescribing, for the large part, of drugs for fatigue; that’s because that’s where the evidence is probably the least strong,” Dr. Galloway said. However, there is much better evidence for the use of exercise training in RA and for combining exercise and psychosocial approaches. Improving sleep hygiene may also be beneficial for some patients.
The bottom line is that “fatigue matters” and should be “talked about more with our patients,” Dr. Galloway said.
Dr. da Silva and Dr. Arnstad had no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Ng disclosed research collaborations with Resolve Therapeutics, electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galloway disclosed receiving honoraria for speaking at meetings, support for conference travel, or both from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCES: da Silva J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0052, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8454; Galloway J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0053, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8483; Arnstad ED et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):176. Abstract OP201, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4006
MADRID – Fatigue is one of the most frequent features of rheumatoid arthritis, and it needs to be assessed and addressed, several leading rheumatology experts urged at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Fatigue is an outcome of outstanding importance for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and therefore it should be an outcome of outstanding importance for clinicians who take care of these patients,” said José António Pereira da Silva, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) during a clinical science session dedicated to the topic.
“Fatigue is described as being significant by as many as 40%-80% of all patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and described as being severe by 41%-49% of these patients according to different studies,” Dr. da Silva said.
“The impact upon the quality of life from the patients’ perspective is quite varied but always rather important, if not ‘dramatic,’ ” Dr. da Silva said. Fatigue needs to be part of treatment targets alongside disease activity and thus regularly measured, he added.
The problem of fatigue
The problem, however, is that fatigue is such a complex construct, observed James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London. “It’s definitely multifactorial in origin; it’s a combination of inflammatory disease, psychosocial situations, and comorbidity.”
Moreover, said Dr. Galloway, “what people describe as fatigue is multidimensional; it’s not just how well you sleep, but how much energy you have, and it’s also how motivated you are.” The fatigue that accompanies RA is different from the fatigue that is experienced in daily life, he noted, and it has a huge impact on patients’ lives.
Determining the cause of fatigue can be challenging, said Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle (England) University.
“Fatigue is a syndrome that often coexists with other symptoms, and there may be different type of fatigue,” Dr. Ng said. He noted that there were many potential underlying biological mechanisms, but the most studied so far is inflammation. Fatigue is probably driven, at least in part, by “sickness behavior” and there are frequent associations between fatigue and chronic inflammatory conditions such as RA and Sjögren’s syndrome.
“I think the role of conventional inflammatory mechanisms, at least in chronic fatigue in chronic conditions, remains unclear,” Dr. Ng added. “The biological systems, for example the vagus nerve, that regulate the immune system may play key roles in fatigue, especially in chronic inflammatory states.”
Whatever the underlying mechanism, it’s clear that there are multiple factors at play that need addressing if fatigue is to be properly addressed in the clinic. Dr. da Silva unveiled a new path analysis model that will be published in a future issue of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology that showed how disease activity, pain, disability, sleep disturbance, and depression might all interlink to account for fatigue in patients with RA.
Young or old, fatigue is a prominent, persistent symptom
Fatigue is not just a problem in older adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, as Ellen Dalen Arnstad, MD, pointed out in a separate session at the congress. Younger adults and adolescents are also often affected, as demonstrated by data she presented from an 18-year follow-up study of individuals with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
An oft-used definition of fatigue, she said was “a persistent, overwhelming sense of tiredness, weakness, and exhaustion.” This results in “decreased capacity of physical function or mental work and is unrelieved by sleep or rests.”
Dr. Arnstad, a pediatric rheumatologist at the Hospital of Levanger in Norway and PhD student at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, presented data from the Nordic JIA study of 377 subjects who were assessed for fatigue. These showed that there were higher levels of fatigue among participants with active disease, pain, and self-reported health problems. The mean Fatigue Severity Scale score was 3.2 overall, with a higher score in females (3.5) versus males (2.5).
“We found highest mean fatigue scores among those with bad physical and mental health,” Dr. Arnstad reported. Just over a quarter (26%) of patients had severe fatigue, which was defined as a score of 4 or more.
“Fatigue is a prominent symptom in JIA after 18 years of disease duration,” and it “should be measured in a long-term follow-up, both in clinical and research settings,” Dr. Arnstad said.
How should fatigue in RA be assessed?
“Fatigue is recognized by OMERACT [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group] as being one of the measured outcome factors in rheumatoid arthritis, one that we should all be taking care of,” Dr. da Silva said. It was added alongside the core set of measures that should be used in all trials “wherever possible.”
So how should fatigue be measured in practice? There are lots of instruments available. Indeed, Dr. da Silva and associates recently counted more than 12, but there is no consensus and no guidelines on which should be used.
“We propose to use a single-item instrument as a screening tool, like the BRAF NRS [Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale] or RAID-F [Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease–Fatigue domain], which would be supplemented by additional multidimensional assessments if significant levels of fatigue are identified,” he said in an interview. “This will be particularly useful when the aims are to explore causality of fatigue or the efficacy of an intervention.”
Dr. da Silva noted after his presentation that the RAID-F score is routinely used at his practice. “It’s an extremely useful instrument in trying to assess how the patient is dealing with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. He emphasized that fatigue needed to be considered separately from disease activity and that “it should be part of treatment targets and it should be regularly measured in both research and clinical practice.”
How can fatigue in RA be treated?
When faced with a patient with RA who is experiencing fatigue, it’s important to take a full history and try to determine the cause or contributing factors, Dr. Galloway advised. “I think it’s really important to [take a history of this] specific symptom in the same way you take a history of articular pain.” Consider the onset of fatigue, for example. Is it sudden or linked to a particular stressor or life event, or has its development been more gradual? What’s been the clinical course, duration, and daily pattern? Are there any factors that might alleviate it or exacerbate it? What’s the impact on the patient’s daily life – both in terms of work and social participation?
Treating RA more effectively might help, “but that is unlikely to be sufficient,” Dr. Galloway said, observing that “leaving uncontrolled inflammation is bad, but, in 2019, more inflammation is probably not the solution to fatigue.” Instead, he suggested looking for and treating comorbidities that might be contributing to the fatigue, such as anemia, endocrine or cardiac disease, or perhaps sleep apnea or depression, among others.
“I would discourage the prescribing, for the large part, of drugs for fatigue; that’s because that’s where the evidence is probably the least strong,” Dr. Galloway said. However, there is much better evidence for the use of exercise training in RA and for combining exercise and psychosocial approaches. Improving sleep hygiene may also be beneficial for some patients.
The bottom line is that “fatigue matters” and should be “talked about more with our patients,” Dr. Galloway said.
Dr. da Silva and Dr. Arnstad had no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Ng disclosed research collaborations with Resolve Therapeutics, electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galloway disclosed receiving honoraria for speaking at meetings, support for conference travel, or both from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCES: da Silva J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0052, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8454; Galloway J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0053, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8483; Arnstad ED et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):176. Abstract OP201, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4006
MADRID – Fatigue is one of the most frequent features of rheumatoid arthritis, and it needs to be assessed and addressed, several leading rheumatology experts urged at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Fatigue is an outcome of outstanding importance for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and therefore it should be an outcome of outstanding importance for clinicians who take care of these patients,” said José António Pereira da Silva, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) during a clinical science session dedicated to the topic.
“Fatigue is described as being significant by as many as 40%-80% of all patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and described as being severe by 41%-49% of these patients according to different studies,” Dr. da Silva said.
“The impact upon the quality of life from the patients’ perspective is quite varied but always rather important, if not ‘dramatic,’ ” Dr. da Silva said. Fatigue needs to be part of treatment targets alongside disease activity and thus regularly measured, he added.
The problem of fatigue
The problem, however, is that fatigue is such a complex construct, observed James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London. “It’s definitely multifactorial in origin; it’s a combination of inflammatory disease, psychosocial situations, and comorbidity.”
Moreover, said Dr. Galloway, “what people describe as fatigue is multidimensional; it’s not just how well you sleep, but how much energy you have, and it’s also how motivated you are.” The fatigue that accompanies RA is different from the fatigue that is experienced in daily life, he noted, and it has a huge impact on patients’ lives.
Determining the cause of fatigue can be challenging, said Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle (England) University.
“Fatigue is a syndrome that often coexists with other symptoms, and there may be different type of fatigue,” Dr. Ng said. He noted that there were many potential underlying biological mechanisms, but the most studied so far is inflammation. Fatigue is probably driven, at least in part, by “sickness behavior” and there are frequent associations between fatigue and chronic inflammatory conditions such as RA and Sjögren’s syndrome.
“I think the role of conventional inflammatory mechanisms, at least in chronic fatigue in chronic conditions, remains unclear,” Dr. Ng added. “The biological systems, for example the vagus nerve, that regulate the immune system may play key roles in fatigue, especially in chronic inflammatory states.”
Whatever the underlying mechanism, it’s clear that there are multiple factors at play that need addressing if fatigue is to be properly addressed in the clinic. Dr. da Silva unveiled a new path analysis model that will be published in a future issue of Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology that showed how disease activity, pain, disability, sleep disturbance, and depression might all interlink to account for fatigue in patients with RA.
Young or old, fatigue is a prominent, persistent symptom
Fatigue is not just a problem in older adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, as Ellen Dalen Arnstad, MD, pointed out in a separate session at the congress. Younger adults and adolescents are also often affected, as demonstrated by data she presented from an 18-year follow-up study of individuals with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).
An oft-used definition of fatigue, she said was “a persistent, overwhelming sense of tiredness, weakness, and exhaustion.” This results in “decreased capacity of physical function or mental work and is unrelieved by sleep or rests.”
Dr. Arnstad, a pediatric rheumatologist at the Hospital of Levanger in Norway and PhD student at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, presented data from the Nordic JIA study of 377 subjects who were assessed for fatigue. These showed that there were higher levels of fatigue among participants with active disease, pain, and self-reported health problems. The mean Fatigue Severity Scale score was 3.2 overall, with a higher score in females (3.5) versus males (2.5).
“We found highest mean fatigue scores among those with bad physical and mental health,” Dr. Arnstad reported. Just over a quarter (26%) of patients had severe fatigue, which was defined as a score of 4 or more.
“Fatigue is a prominent symptom in JIA after 18 years of disease duration,” and it “should be measured in a long-term follow-up, both in clinical and research settings,” Dr. Arnstad said.
How should fatigue in RA be assessed?
“Fatigue is recognized by OMERACT [Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials group] as being one of the measured outcome factors in rheumatoid arthritis, one that we should all be taking care of,” Dr. da Silva said. It was added alongside the core set of measures that should be used in all trials “wherever possible.”
So how should fatigue be measured in practice? There are lots of instruments available. Indeed, Dr. da Silva and associates recently counted more than 12, but there is no consensus and no guidelines on which should be used.
“We propose to use a single-item instrument as a screening tool, like the BRAF NRS [Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale] or RAID-F [Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease–Fatigue domain], which would be supplemented by additional multidimensional assessments if significant levels of fatigue are identified,” he said in an interview. “This will be particularly useful when the aims are to explore causality of fatigue or the efficacy of an intervention.”
Dr. da Silva noted after his presentation that the RAID-F score is routinely used at his practice. “It’s an extremely useful instrument in trying to assess how the patient is dealing with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. He emphasized that fatigue needed to be considered separately from disease activity and that “it should be part of treatment targets and it should be regularly measured in both research and clinical practice.”
How can fatigue in RA be treated?
When faced with a patient with RA who is experiencing fatigue, it’s important to take a full history and try to determine the cause or contributing factors, Dr. Galloway advised. “I think it’s really important to [take a history of this] specific symptom in the same way you take a history of articular pain.” Consider the onset of fatigue, for example. Is it sudden or linked to a particular stressor or life event, or has its development been more gradual? What’s been the clinical course, duration, and daily pattern? Are there any factors that might alleviate it or exacerbate it? What’s the impact on the patient’s daily life – both in terms of work and social participation?
Treating RA more effectively might help, “but that is unlikely to be sufficient,” Dr. Galloway said, observing that “leaving uncontrolled inflammation is bad, but, in 2019, more inflammation is probably not the solution to fatigue.” Instead, he suggested looking for and treating comorbidities that might be contributing to the fatigue, such as anemia, endocrine or cardiac disease, or perhaps sleep apnea or depression, among others.
“I would discourage the prescribing, for the large part, of drugs for fatigue; that’s because that’s where the evidence is probably the least strong,” Dr. Galloway said. However, there is much better evidence for the use of exercise training in RA and for combining exercise and psychosocial approaches. Improving sleep hygiene may also be beneficial for some patients.
The bottom line is that “fatigue matters” and should be “talked about more with our patients,” Dr. Galloway said.
Dr. da Silva and Dr. Arnstad had no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Ng disclosed research collaborations with Resolve Therapeutics, electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Galloway disclosed receiving honoraria for speaking at meetings, support for conference travel, or both from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCES: da Silva J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0052, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8454; Galloway J. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):15. Abstract SP0053, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8483; Arnstad ED et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):176. Abstract OP201, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4006
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
